HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5B LOT C D COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING APPEAL OF FLOOR LEVEL DETERMINATION LEGALFIIE SOPT
Court of Appeals, State of Colorado
ZEast l4e Avenue, Denver, CO 80203
Eagle County Distict Court, Honorable Frederick W.
Gannett
Appellanti?laintiff: COVERED BRIrcB, ING
AppelleelDefendant TOWN OF VAIL, a municipal
corporation
District Court CaseNumbet200T CV Z\1,Division 2
COI]RT USE ONLY
Attorney: Paul R. Dunkelman, Atiorney for Appellant
P.O. Box 1829
Frisco, CO 80443
Phone: (970) 668-1678Fax: (970)668-5121
E-mail: carlson2@colorado.net
.: # 23163
Case Number:
2008cA
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant Covered Bridge, Inc., by and through its counsel of record,
carlsoq Carlson & Dunkelman,LLC, submits this Notice of Appeal pursuant to
c.A.R.3(d).
TRIAL COURT INFORMATION
Trial Courfi Eagle County Dishict Court
Trial Judge: The Honorable Frederick W. Gannett
Trial CourtNumber: Civil Action 2007 CV 2006, Division 2
A) Nature of Case:
This case arises out of a review by the District court pur.suant to c.R.c.p.
Rule 106 of a detemination by the Town of vail that r.eal property owned by the
Appellant shoulcl be deemed to be a first floor unit defined as at grade or sfreet
level when in fact the real property is neither at gade or at street level. The r.eal
property at issue is above both grade and sfeet level. By definition in the Vail
Town Code, real properfy above grade should be deemed to be a second floor unit.
Real property determined to be first floor units have the most restrictive zoning
applications. Real property deteunined to be second floor units have more liberal
zoning applications. Appellant is appealing the District Court's affirmation of the
Town of vail determination that the real property at issue are first floor units.
B) Judgment being Appealed:
Appellant appeals the Trial Court's Opinion ancl Order dated December 13,
2007. The order is a final judgment of the District court subject to an appeal as
of right.
The Trial Court's Opinion and Order resolved all pending issues before the
Trial courl. There were no issues related to attomey fees and costs.
; includingattomey fees and costs:
D)
c.R.c.P.546):
No. No certification pursuant to c.R.c.p, Rule 54(b) was necessary as the
Order and Opinion addressed all claims.
E) The Date ofJudernent:
The opinion and order was entered by the Trial court on December 13,
2007 and served on counsel for the parties via e-filing on Decemb er !3,2007.
No.
No motions fbr post-trial relief were filed with the Trial Court.
The date anv motign for post:trial relief was denied or deemed denied:
No motions for post-trial relief were filed with the Trial Court.
No extensions have been sought regarding the filing of any Notice of Appeal.
F)
G)
H)
D
" t) Whether the District Court applied the incorrect standard of review,
specifically abuse of discretion, instead the apprnprixe de novo review of the
Town of Vail interpretation of the Town Code?
'2) Did the Trial Court err in determining as a matTer of law that the applicable
portion of the Vail Town Code was ambiguous and, therefore, permitting statutory
construction beyond the plain meaning of the Town Code?
pr" 3) Did the Trial Court err in affirming the Town of Vail ruling based upon a
finding of ambiguity when the Town of Vail did not determine the Town Code to
be arnbiguous in making its determination?
A) Did the Trial Court em in detennining that only a review of t}te detennination
lelated to Unit 8,227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado was properly before the Court
and not a review of the determination related to Units D and E, 227 Bridge Street,
Vail, Colorado?
TBANSCRIPT
There is no transcript fi'om the Trial Court. There is a tuanscript which has
alrcady been prepared from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental
Commission Meeting, Town of Vail Work Session and Town of vail Counsel
Meeting. This transcript is part of the Certified Record which was submitted to
the Trial Court as part of the review, The transcript prepared by Juli Blass is
eighty two (82) pages long.
PREARGUMENT CONFERENCE
Appellant does not request a preargument conference but is willing to participate
if the court deems that a preargument conftrence may be useful'
COITNSEI,.
Counsel for Appellant/Plaintiff:
Carlson, Carlson & Dunl<elman, LLC
Paul R. Dunkelman, #23 | 63
P.O. Box 1829
Frisco, CO 80443
(e70) 668-1678
Counsel for Appellee/Defendant:
Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC
Eric M. Zipotin, #30133
Elliot J, Scoti #36687
1700 Broadway, Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80290
(303) 320-os09
J. Mathew Mre,#274I4
Town Attorney
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
(970) 479-2107
APPENDIX
An Appendix is attached hereto containing the Opinion and Order of the Trial
Cout dated December 13,2007,
Dated ttris 25il' day of January, 200g.
Respectfully submitted,
CARLSON CARLSON
& DI.JNKELMAN, LLC,
Paul R Dunkelman, #23 | 63
P.O. Box 1829
Frisco, CO 80443
(e70) 668-1678
CERTIT'ICATE OF SERVICE
I certifli that on this 25th day of January,200g, a ilue and conect copy of the
foregoing Notice of Appeal and attachments were forwarded via Courtlink andlor
Federal Express to thefollowing:
Colorado Court of Appeals
Colorado State Judicial Buildine
ZBast l4th Avenue, 3d Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Eric M. Zipoin
Elliot J. Scott
Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC
1700 Broadway, Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80290
Eagle County Disf ict Court
P.O. Box 597
Eagle, CO 81631
J. MathewMire
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
APPENDTX
Lopinion and order of the Eagle county District Court dated December 13,2007
El"lLli0 Docrrncrrt
District Coud, Eaglo County, Colorado
885 Chanbers Avenue
P.O. Box 597
Eaglc. Colomdo 81631
(.u Eng|s Lo{nry lrlsll.rr:l r,ol|l'[ r r.,
Fltlng lhtc: Dcc l3 2007 l2:47P1'l *lfif
Filirrg lD: 17$S2l3l
Rcr.lcw C'lcrft: hrrcn Lrjnrt
I
ACOURTUSEONLX4- -J
covERED BRTDGE,INC,,
Plaintiff
TOWN OF VNL, a munlclpal eorporation,
Defcndant
Casc No.: ?ffi1 CV 226
Div.;2
OPINIONANDORDER
Ttds mattercomes befor the Dietrict Court for Eagle Counfy, Colorado, by way of
plaintiff C-overed Bridge, Inc's fflaintiff) Corlrplaint and Aoplication otJttdjcial Reviqv, In
this action, plaintiff appeals a zouing doterrrination mf,de by defondant Town of Vail (tlr
'Toyn').After reviewing the rccold, and having fully and fairly considered the argurnentg
pre.sented, theCourt issues thie Opinion nnd Order.
BACKGROT'NI)
L Factual Background md Legal Settlng
Plaintiff does not dispute the Town's findings of fact in this case' Instead, plaintifr
challenges thc Town's intorpretation of its Town Code (thc "Cgd"').
Plaintiff owns Unit E in a structur€ known as the Covered Blidge Buildin g, at227 Btidge
I
Street, Vail, Cotorado. Unit B is located approximately four feet abovo the slreet, but is acrcessed
fmm the street vle a short series of stairs.l Iu thc procecdings giving risc io the instant flction,
I Ttc coort nomc rhe eristcnce of a dirpute ovcr whdtrer dris aocers ir "dirccl"',9aa plalnrifPs S€Dl$ p' 'f' DssPie
tlris minor dlsputc, it is not diryutsd thit a porson wlshing !o cnler Unit E rnay do .so frorn tltc street, A porson
attEmpting !o entcr Uoit E from the stroct necds only to climb r four-foot tall sorles ofstcps to enror tho unit. Thus, s
poreon my acceo* t nir E from 6tr,ecrt lovc[ evcn tlriugh tlnt accoss msy invotvc clightty rnoro phyoical effott lhrn if
it rrcre lcvcl widr thc ctrcct.
plaintiff rcqucsted a dctcrmination fiom thc Town that Unit E was a sccond floor unit for
prrrpoegs of thczoning provieions of the Codc.2 fite Covered Bridge Building is located in the
zoning distdct known as the Commercial Core 1 Disrrict (the '.CCl District").
Use of property within tlc CCI District is govcmcd by a property's position rclative to
slteet tevoi or grnde. Thert are three levels that are rclevant to proPerty usp in the CCI Distlictr
l) "basCmpnt" Or "garden lerol" ("basenront") 2) "first flooC'or "strcot lovcl" ("firSt flOor"); and
3) "second floorabovc grade" ("socond floo/), Basemflrl is defined as "that floor ofa building
that is entirely or substantially below grado." Code, $12-78-2'4. First floor is defioed as "that
floor of tho buililing that is located at grade or street level." Code, $12'78-3.A. Second floor is
defined as being the second floor above grado,3 Code, $12-78-4.,{'
The opcrative tcrms within thc abovc dcfinitions art "grade" and "street levei." Neitter
tcrm is dofined by tho Code.a
The distinction bctviccn floors in the CCI Dsrict is of lrryotance bocauso of the
auttrorized uses for those floors. Generally speaking, firet floor poperties rrc to be used for retail
businesscs, while second floor proponioe have fowor rostrictions on thair use.
II. Prcceedingr Below
The dispute.rrD judicc uirctfnom the Towu's intorpretation of whethcr a unit lying four
feot above grad6 or sttoot level qualifios qs first floor or second floor for purposes ofmning, The
Town has determined that such a unit qualifics as a first floor lcv€I.
? Tho Courr notos thar plalndff owns Units D rd F, as well, and wishee the Court make dotcrminations in rogard to
thom, As the ieiuag involving Unils D otrd F wcrc noi baforE thc Tow4 drc Cout cutnot non, addrcss thern on
1pperl,I Ihc Coun discugseo the nranlng of sccond floo io tho courre of thic Opinion and Ordcr.
r tfte Codo docr giw trro comcwlrat Elcvrnt drfinitionr for gndee: l) an "oxieting grad6" b the exisling or natutal
grade of a sitc prlof ao conslructioni .and 2) r "finirhcd gndo" is tho grrdo propoeod upon completion of a pltject.'
Ccdro, gl2-2-2. Rogardloeo, noithcr definition ir of practlcrl use in lha crclc mb Judlce .
ti
Plaintiff first requested a dctetmination from thc Town's Depaltment of Communiry
Dcvolopment (the "DCD") that Unit B is a socond floor unjt,' tn making this fequest, plaintiff
raised much the same arguments tlnt it makcs in the prescnt sppcnl.
:
The DCb found, as relcvant here, thar Unit E is a first floor unit. The DCD found that'
although Unit E i,s four feet sbovc strcet levcl, the Town had consistently deterurined in the past
lhat such a differenco in elevation was not sufficicnt to mako a Property "above streat level." The
DCD &lso found that to hold otherwiso would bc contrary to the "horizonlal zoning intent" of the
Cods,6
Following the DCD's decision, plaintlff appealed to the Town's Planning Environrncntnl
Commission {t|c ,?EC'). Aftcr holding a public hcaring at whiclt plaintiff raised muclr thc sarne
argUments that arc now beforc thc Court, thc PEC adopted thc following recommendatians, iflter
alia,nadeby its otaffi
Due to the sloping topographic conditions of Bridge Strtet . . . instances will cxist
wh,rs a reasonabie changrin clevation . . . from the pedeseian level to thc'Tirst
floor" or "street" levol of the building will occur, Said conditions . . , shall not be
construed to circumvent the Town'g longstanding dcveloprnent objective of
rnaintaining and preeorving the chaxacter of thc Vail comnsrcial area and
prcmoting 4 varioty of rctail shoPs at the pcde.strian lovell
- fo [accept plaintifsJ aryuments will fundamentally alror tbo character of Vail
Village and the dovelopmcnt objectivcs oftho Town. For in$tnnce, after 32 ycars,
it would now be interpreted that cxisting first floor snd sfreet level retail
businesscs . . . could be converted to non-retail uses sush as business offices md
pmfessional ofhcos. Thit ctrrangcia usc is cloarly conbruy tr: the adopted gods,
objectivee and pollcios ofthc Town of Vaill
- Any other intcrpretation of the fown'e horizontal zoning regulation is contrary to
ths horjzontal zoningintentofthe Codc and dcvclopnent goals and policics of
5 Phinliff tlso eought r dotcrmlnation rogardlng Unit g but that dotarinlnation is not presonily bcfore the Court.
o ,Srs DCD Deccmtbr l. 2006 Lefler. R, 3-4,
the Town. To interpret the Codc othonrisc would result in office uses on thc strcet
levol of buildings tiuoughort thc Town's cnrcial commercial core areas.T
Thus, the PEC also detcrmined thCI Unit B is I str€ot lovol unit.
t,
Plaintiff appcaled the PEC's determination to thp Town Council (thc "Council"). The
Council vicwed the Covercd Bridgc Building and conductocl a public hearing upon tho mattcr,
Again, the arguments presented to the Council wcre practically thc $amo as thosc raised during
the othcr sages of this procecding including tlnt sub judice. After considering the argumenrs
raired, the Council aflirmed the decieion of ths PEC.!
Plaintiffnow challcngcs the Town's detsrmination. Plaintiff argucs that in reaching its
conclusions, thdTown ignored the plain langrrage of Sre Code and misapplied it. Plaintiff furthcr
afgues thal unit B is, irr fact, a socond floor unit.
. STANDARDOFREVTEW
C.R.C.P. 106(aXa) govern$ a courtle rcview of a lower ontity's judicial or quasi-judicial
actions, A quasi-judicial action gencrally involvos a dotennination ofiighh, duties, or
obligations of specific indiyiduals by app$ng legal standards or policy considorations to facts
developed 4t a liearing for the purpose of resolvlng the intere$ts in queution. Stau Furm Mut.
Awo. Ins. Co. v, City of lakcwood,789 p.zd 808, 813 (Colo. 1990). The Town'$ determination
of tbe zoning classification forplaintiffs proparty m€ets this standard, and C.R.C.P' 106(rX4) is
thus the proper m€ans to address the issues prosented.
Judicial review is lhnited to whethcr thc lower cntity cxoecded its jurisdiction ot abused
ils discr€tion, based on evidenco in thc rccord. CR.C,P. 105(aX4XI); Jtevinson Imports, Inc. v.
? .$ea Staff Mfmordndum, R- pp lE-20,
r SLc T,, pp. 7&81 Bcclrso tlu Coulcil adoplod atl findings of fto PBC, tlxl Cout will rcfer to lhc PBC's findiag.r
whcn discussing t&e Councll'* flading.
city and county of Denver,143 P.3d t099, 1101 (Colo, App. 2006). Therc ls no allcgation in
this cace, nor is tlrcrc causc for the Court o flnd, that tho Town exceeded its jurisdiction.
Thereforc, the Court will review ths Town's actions only for an abuse of discrotion, which did
not occur unless thc Towu's decision was rnanifestly arbifiary, unroasonable, or unfair. People v,
Wallk, 167 P.3d 183, 187 (Colo. App. Z0UD.
In tho caso srb judicc,plwillff.does not challenge tho only relevant finding of fact - that
Unit E is approximately four feot above strest lcvel. Instcad, plaintiff challenges tho Town's
intcrpretation and application of Bre Codo, meaning that the Court need review only the Town's
inte,rprctatioD and application of iE Codc.
Gencrally, an agcncy'r intflpt€tations of its own nrls$ witl be given deference and will be
acceptcd if they have a reasonable basis in law and are wanantod by the record. laylawk Cafe v.
CoIo. Springs Uquor ard Beer llcenshg 8d,165 P.3d 82LEU (Colo. App' 200,6), citing
Re gents o! Univ, of Colo. v. Ctty and Comty of Denver, n9 P'zd 58, 61 (Colo. I 996)'
Nevcrtbel€ss, tbc agcncy's intsrpretgtion of itS rules is advisory only -.a court is not bound to
defor !o an agency detcrmination that misconstmcs or misapplics tbs law, Stcvlwon Imports, 143
P.3d t10l-02.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff ugum thst 6e Town ercd whcn it concludcd that a poperty which is physically
located above the shect or gradc level muld quallfy for flrst floor zoning status. Plaintiffargues
that" ln so holding the Town misoonstru€d and mioappliert t}e applicable law.e
e'Ilc Oout notos {ur plcintlff aleo rrgr$ lhet tlro Town'c intcryrotatlon of tho Code ir unsupportcd by compctcnt
cvidenco. Ac thst argumolt ndatcs to frctud fiodlng* and not legnl intcrprcndon, thc Court dirregards it.
Specifically, ptaintiff argtrbs that the dcfinition of lirst floor is not arnbiguouu' and that
tbc Town thprcfors had no option but to apply tbc ocprcss dcfurition. Plaintiff argues, pcr ttle
expross definition, that r building levol must bo exactty at grade or strcet level in oder to qualify
as a first floor. In rosponse, the3owu argues that the dcfinition is ambiguous bccau$e thc icrms
usod to define first floor are ambiguous, that factors outside of the ordinance's language tnust be
uscd to detcrmine lrc meaning, and wben that is dono, a first floor zoning nay encompass
propertics above gmde or strcet level.
To resolvo the issues prcsented, tho Court must first teview lhe Town's actions in
interpreting and applying its Codo. If the Town abused its disctption in doing either, the Court
rnay then independently review ths Code, but this is tho only instance in which tho Court may do
so. If the Town has not abused its discrction, thc Coult is obligated to acccpt the Town's
interprctation and application of its own Codc.
I. Tho Town'o Findlngr Regadlry the Code
Rather than applyiog thc plain language of dro Code, the Town opted to interpret the
Code. Thereforo. thc Court must rpview whethor the Codo is arnbiguous. Only if it is ambiguous
could the Town then have gone belond the plain languagc in an cffort to decipber tho intont of
the Code's makers.lo
lo At thls $age, tlrc Cout ir coucorncd only with whotlnr tho To*n could brve concluded thal $s Codo le
amblguous, If ir couH havo, the Torn would not hrve abueod its dirc,retion in ptocoodlng dircotly b thtut0ry
lntlerotdofi witbout an 6xpross finding of ambiguily.
A. Ambiguity
Ordinarily, en otdlnance'g ptain languagc must bc usod o deteminc the intcnl of its
maket,,Iaclson & Co. (USA),Itrc, v. Townof Awn,l66P3d2g7,2gg (Colo' App' 2007;'rr Only
when a 8loture is arnbiguous may tho canons of statutory intorptptation bc uscd,
trn thc cass stb judice,the Town never madc a specific finding that tlre code is
ambiguous on the issue of first floor zoning' Regardless' the Town proceeded to interprct tbe
Code beyond its plain moaning. Thus, it is implied that the Town determined the Code to be
arnbiguous, and the Court will rcview fhis holding to detorminc whcther the Town abused its
dlscrction, Becauso the Town nevcr madc a finding that the Code is ambiguous, the Court is
forctd to makc indopendent findings rogarding ambiguity. Ncverthelecs' thepurpose of the
Court's findings is only to determinc whcther the Town abused its disctetion, i.e', whether an
irnplicd finding of ambiguity would bo an abuse of discretion. 12
Ths CCI Dhtrict zoni[gregulatlous create tho tlu'ee-tiered zoning unangenrent
a
previously described: a bascment lcveli a fil6t floor level; and a second floor level. As
particularly relevant to rhe caw sub judicc, the Code'e definition of fitst floor slatos that the first
floor is that floor of the bullding located at grade or strcct level. On its facs, dris definition
cloady indicates tbat the flrst floor is al gradc or succt level.
Nevorthelcss,whenthedcfinltionof fintfloorle read intotumwithth€reslof theCCl
zoning provisions, its definition becomes ambiguous. This is true for thpe reasons.
tl Tho Cdurt notos, wiah l0tgr€st, that tho Court of Apperls affirmod Judge Moofhoad in Jachson'
rr Put difuently, if lte C.orrl can derornino tho &do- to bo anbiguors, lhan the Town did not abusc ils diocretion in
immediatoly rrsorting to the prlncipt* of rtatutory incerprohtioD
First, the defrnition refers to "gpade" and "stroet level." Nowhore is either term defincd in
the Code. Title 12 does refer to threc differont kinds of specific grades, but thcre is no dofinidon
given l,o grade 0s used in the definttion of fitst floor, nor is sn'eet lovel anyvlreit dcfined' Thus'
eroctly where a building level must be located to bc considercd as being at gade or street Jevel is
unccrtain, nogating plaintiff s argumoot that the definition is unarnbiguous'
Second, the Codo definos a basement as "that floor of a building that iu entirely or
nrbsAntially below grade." Thue, a bosemeot lcvel could havc part of its vertlcal spacc exlend
above grade, ],ct as long a$ most ofits vortical spac€ extended below grade, jt could still quality
&9 a basement, were tho exprcss dofinition of first floor to be hpplied' howcver, such a levcl
could also be the flrst floor because it coutd be Considercd to be at gfado of stfeet levcl, via the
small portion extending above grade or street level. this conflict negates plaintiffs argurnilt
thal the definition of first floor ir unambiguous.
Third, werc the Code to bc taken as wrltFn, it would bccome nonsensical in any instarce
except when there is a flrst floor located exaetly at str€et level or grade. Ia any other situation, if
plainriff s inteqpretation of first floor were applicd, thcre would be no first floor and, as thc
deflnitlon of second floor contemplAtcs tho existcnce of a fust lloor, therc could not bs a second
floor for lackof a first.
For these r€.u9on$ tho court finds tlre code is ambiguous. The code is in need of
interputation beyond its plain mcaning, and tho Town did not abuse its discretion in proceeding
directly to detemrine intent by mcans othcr than plain language without an exprc$s ftnding of
anbiSuity.
B, I,rjncipl€s of Stltutory Constructlon
In constnring an ordinance, efftct is to be given to the rnaker's inbnt' Woellhqfv, People,
105 P.3d zog,2Ll (Colo. 2!05). To do so, a reviewing body gcne'rally looks to tbo plain
languagc of the ordinance. /4 whcn, howevcf, a stabto is ambiguous, accepted prirrciples of
statu0ory construction may bo used to dctcrrnine intail. Id.
Accepted principles of statutory inrcrprctation include: l) thc textual context; 2)
Iegislative history 3) ststJe of lnw prior to enactnpnt of the legislatlon; 4) thc problem addressed
by the legislation; and 5) the relatlonshlp borwoen rhe logistorion at issue and other pieces of
legislation addrasaing the *amc probtsm in an attdnpt to clarify the legislative intent' Fqtmers
Ins. Exeh v. Biil Boom, \rc.,961P.2d 465,4?0 (Colo, 1998). If the langue of th€ statute is
roasonably sus,.eptible to morre than one interprctation, a reviewing body should constme the
langusgc in light of the goal sought to bc achleved. Icl,Finally, ambiguous statutes should be
interpreted so as !o hannonlze all parts ofa smtutory schenro. /d.
The Court makes ttrc preliminary linding that the Town d.id use appropriate methods of
statutory co6truction * in panicular, tlrc Town wa.s concernod with: I) legistative Nstorg and 2)
the problcrns addrcssed by the ordinance, Accol'dlngly, lho Court will review the Towr'e
findings in regard to the$e two princjples.ll
l, bgislatlve Hbnry
The Town reviewed the 1975 zoning ordinance, which provided;
Bccause of changing conditious, tlrc Towu Council consido$ tbat the muntcipal
government must pmtect thc character of Said arca and that this onlinance is
necossary to coffi;uc ttre balancc between the many commercial and residential
It Agrinn as tbe Council affrmed fro PEC's firdings, tho following dbcursioni fi€ a rcview of tho findings made by
dre PEC and affirmcd by tho Boanl.
uscs permitted in the Commcrcisl Cot€ I Dstrict" to Prevent entire buildings
ttrercin ftom Uecoming commercial spacc at the cxpcnse of dwelling and
accommodation units, g4
lcvols [emphasic addcd, ]
Additionally, the 1975 ordinanco dofined fust floor as "that floor of a building that ie locatod at
gradc or strcot lcvel," a dcfinition thal remaincd the same in tho Code at tho time of the Town's
dccision,l5
The purposc ofthc prescnt Code is:
To providc and maintLrin the unlque character of the Vail village cornmercial
arei, with lts mixture of todges a'nd cornmercial esbblishments in a prcdominately
pedesuian area. . . [and is] intended to ensurc tbe rnintcoancc and preservation
irtthe tighuy clustered.urangements of buildings fronting on pedeshianways and
public grecnways . . . .'o
Based ou the purposas listcd above, thc Town determinod tllat:
o Duc to the slopitrg topogfaphic conditions of Bridge Street, specificalJy'
and ths Townbf Vu;1, glndratly, instrnccs wjll oxist where a rearonable
chonge in elovalion F.76 feeD irom tho podastrian level to the "first floor"
or .,street" level of the building will occur. said conditions, however, shall
not bc construcd to circumvcnt thc Town's longstanding developnrcnt
objective of mainaining and precewing tbe character of the.Vail .
commercial arpa and prornoting a varicty of retail shops at the pedestrian
level;
r To tacccpt plaintifflsl argurrcnts will fundamentatly altcr the charactet of
Yatl villagc and tlrc devolopmcnt objectives of the Town. For instance'
ihrx 3zy&te, tt would now be intarprotcd thar existing first floor and
stneet levc,l retail businesSes . . , coUld bC converted to non-rctail uses such
as businegs offices and professional offices. This change in uso is clearly
contrary do tt1g adop6d-goalg objectives, and policies of tbe Town of Vail;
and
. Any ofher intaprotation of thc Town's fzouing sCheme] is_conUary to the
horizontal zoning intent ofthe codc and dovolopment goals and policies
l'Saa R,, p. 21,tt,tca R. o. l?.r' sce coos, C I i-7n- t ,
l0
of thc Town To interyret the Codc otherwise would result in office uses
on thc strcc! lcvct of buitdingr tluoughout the Town's cntcial commercial
cort areas [emphoses added].
These findinge indicate that the Town considers thc intent behind the Code to bo tlte
fosEring of rctail shopc accossible fmm the street.
The Court discems no abuse of diucrction in the Town's dcterminations. Per the pasl
zoning ordinan@s, atr exprcss purposc in thc past was to fostel r€tail shops at pedestrian, r'.e.
stroet or gradg tevel.l? Becguse the definition of firtt floor has not changed, and because the
purposc of the present Code is to maintaln the charactor of thc CCI District, it not manifcstly
arbiuary, unroaronable, or unfair for the Town to have found that the intent behind the preaent
.
Codc rernains the same now as it was in he past - to fuster the odstence of retail shops at
!
propenies accessed from tho streot
2, Problems Addresscd by thc Ordhnncc
From the Town's findings nbove listed, it is clcar that the problem addrassed by the
zoning rogulations was and is the poosibility ofnon-retail businesscs at strcet level eroding the
character of the CCI District. The findings set forth abovo indicate that fostering retail
buelnesses accosible fi'om street levcl is the purpose for the Codc.
In light 6f tnat purpose, it is not manifxtly arbitrary, unrea$onablo, or unfair for thc
Town to detsmine that tho p€sent Code existc to address this issue.
il. fite Torvn's Appllcatlon of the Codg oe Intorpreted, to the Undisput d Fact$
Using thc lindings and lnterprctations above, the Town detemrincd that tlre inteDt of the
Codc is to foster letail shope accessible from the Sheet. The Town is required to givc effcct to
't-Tfio Courr is a$aro th0t Smde and sroet lewl aro not dofincd as "pedartrian lcvol," Nevorthotesd, it is nor on abule
of dlscrction for Toi,vn to havs dotcrninod thc tcrms lo bo sy0on)ryDou$.
n
that intent. In order io carry out thi$ intcut, thc Town determittcd that a Propefiy nccess€d fiom
the street, though four feet above it, is subject to first floor zoning rcgulation'
fto CoJrt nnas that tho Town's dotcrrdnation is not an abuss of discretion The Town's
dctcrnination is a rstionnl decision bascd upon fic intent of the codo. It is not manifestly
artitrary, uffcasonable, or unfair.
CONCLUSION
T'lre Town has nd abused iB discrotion ln eithor in detcrmining the meaning of first floor
to bc ambiguore, in intorpreting that dcfinition, or in applying that intcrprctadon to thc facts of
this ca8e. No reason cxisB for thc court to overturn the Town's findings and determluations'
wHEREFonE, aftpr a fult and fuir considcntion of the issues prcsentcd, it is
oRDEnED this l3th day of Decenrber, 200?, by rho Distia court for Eagle connty' that
plaintiff Covered Bridgo, Inc.'s re{ucst for lhc dpfontlant Town of Vail's detennination in regrd
m unit E of the covcred Bridge Building be'overtumad, should bc, aM hereby is, DBNIED'
L2
L,-.
The information contained in this file
relates to
an appeal of floor level determinations
of the
Covered Bridge Building
227 Bridge Street
PEC
211212007
Town Council
51112007
o
MEMORANDUM lbta-s
cu
To: Vail Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Date: May 1,20O7
Subject Covered Bridge, Inc. Appeal of PEC Determination 21122007
il.
ilt.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of
Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to uphold an
administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the Covered
Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street
Lots C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-8, Vail Village First
Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
A copy of the Appeals Form submitted by Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C.,
on behalf of the property owner, Covered Bridge, Inc., stramped received on
March 1, 2007, has been aftached for reference.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning & Environmental Commission's decision
to uphold an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within
the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building.
BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Department received a
letter from Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, requesting that the Town of Vail
provide an interpretation of the specific floor level and, therefore, the permitted
and conditional uses of Condominium Units C & E, Covered Bridge Building, 227
Bridge Street, as defined by the Vail Town Code.
On December 1, 2006, the Zoning Administrator provided the requested
interpretation. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of
Condominium Units C and E, Covered Bridge Building, the Community
Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file
with the Town of Vail:
r Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Codeo Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS')r Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block 58, Vail Village 1" Filing
tv.
On December 21,2006, the Town of Vail Gommunity Development.Department
received a complete Appeals Form filed on behalf of the appellant.
On February 12, 2007, the Town of Vail Planning & EnvironmCntal Commission
held a public meeting to hear an appeal of an administrative action determining
that Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level"
of the building. Upon presentation of evidence and testimony, the Commission
made eight findings of fact and voted unanimously to uphold the previous
decision of the administrator.
On April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council granted a continuance of the public
hearing on the appeal to the May 1, 2007, Town Council meeting at the request
of the staff and the appellant.
A copy of the memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, dated
February 12, 2007,and a copy of the approved meeting minutes have been
attached for reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town
Council upholds the February 12, 2007, decision of the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission, based upon the following information:
1) the record established before the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental
Commission on February 12,2007,
2) the eight findings of fact made by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental
Commission on February 12,2007, and
3) the evidence and testimony presented to the Vail Town Council on May 1,
2007.
Furthermore, the Gommunity Development Department recommends that in
upholding the decision of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental
Commission, the Vail Town Council makes the following findings of fact :
o Due to the sloping topographic conditions of Bridge Sfreel
specifically, and the Town of Vail, generally,lnsfances will exist where
a reasonable change in elevation (3.76 feet) ftom the pedestrian level
to the 'first floor" or "streef level of the building will occur. Said
conditions, however, shall not be construed to circumvent the Town's. Iongstanding development objective of maintaining and preserving the
character of the Vail commercial area and promoting a variety of retail
shops af fhe pededrian level.
. For zoning purposes, the "street level' of the building shall be that
floor level located at elevation 8162'-0 3/", as depicted on the
approved plans.
. For zoning purposes, the "grade" on the easf slde of the Covered
Bridge Building shall be 8158.74', not 8152'-8" as suggesfed by the
appellant.
2
The east and south sides of the Covered Bridge Building are entirely
or substantially below grade, as depicted on the approved plans.
The presences of a "garden" level of a building shall reasonably infer
that some portion or poftions of a building or structure will be exposed
for purposes of visual exposure and ingress and egress.
According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February
14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers that
retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building, as
required by the Zoning Regulations. The definitions of 'basement" or.
"garden" level and Tirst floor" or "street" level have remained
unchanged and the regulation has been consistently applied by the
'Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for the last 32 years.
To except the appellant's interpretation of the regulations will
fundamentally alter the character of Vail Village and the development
objectives of the Town. For instance, after 32 years, it would now be
interpreted that existing first floor and street level retail businesses
such as Russe//! Ore House, Vendetta's, Red Lion, Mooseb
Caboose, Vail T-Shirt Company, Axel's, Sweet Basil, Rucksack,
Laughing Monkey and numerous other retail businesses could be
converted to non+etail uses such as business offices and professrbnal
offices. This change lln use rs clearly contrary to the adopted goals,
objectives and policies of the Town of Vail and inconsistent with the
Town's HorizontalZoning Ordinance of 1975 (ord. 16 seriesof 1975).
That the PEC neithter violated the rules of statutory construction nor
amended the Code in guise of interpretation as the PEC conectly
applied the definitions of "garden or basement level" and Tirst floor or
street level" as these terms relate to the Covered Bridge Building,
sinee it is clearly understood through the consistent application of the
regulations a slight change in elevation between the street and the
floor of a building may exist. ln fact, the statutory language of the
relevant definitions is clear and the legislative intent of ensuring retail
uses on the pedestrian level(s) of a building is reasonably certain as
affirmed by the Town's HorizontalZoning Ordinance of 1975 (ord. 16
series of 1975).
To ignore the intent of the Code and the development objectives of
the Town, as suggested by the appellant, would suggest that the
street level of the Covered Bridge Building must slope at the same
pitch as Bridge Street or a portion of the street level of the building
must be buried below grade to account for the pitch of the street.
That based upon the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail
Town Council finds that the Town of Vail Planning'& Environmental
Commission accurately interpreted the definitions of "garden or
basement" Ievel and 'fird floor or street" level, as fhese terms relate to
o
the intent of the Code and apply to the development objectives of the
Town of Vail. As a result, the determination of the PEC on February
12, 2007, is neither contrary to the language of the Town Code nor
was it an arbitrary or capricious decision.
Any other interpretation of the Town's horizontal zoning regulation is
contrary to the huizontal zoning intent of the Code and development
goals and policies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise
would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout
the Town's crucial commercial core areas. Such an interpretation
would result in an interpretation of the 6de to mean that which it
does nol express nor intend fo express.
The Vail Town Council concludes, based upon the evidence and
testimony presented, that the appellant ftas nof met the standards
and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Zoning
Regulations to overturn the decision of the Planning & Environmental
Commission. Specifically, the appellant has failed to demonstrate to
fhe satisfacfion of the Town Council that the interpretation and
application of the horizontal zoning regulations has been incorrectly
applied as defined by the Zoning Regulations and the development
objectives of the Town of Vail.
o
Carlson,
RonaUW. Carbon
Judith Janws Cmlson
PaulR.Dunlrchan
Christoplvr D. Tomcfuick
Cailson I Dturrl/r,ehnl;rn,
Attorneys at l-aw
Drakc l-anding + 975 N. Ten Mile Dtiue + P.O. Bor lB29
Frisco, Colnrada 80443
I
L.L.C.
February 27,2007
VIAF'EDERAL EXPRESS
Townof Vail
Departnent of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Appeal - Covered Bridge, Inc.
To Whom It Mav Concern:
Enclosed please find the following in connection with Covered Bridge Inc.'s
Appeal:
' APPeals Formr Attachment I - Aggrieved or Adversely Impacted Personr Attachment 2 - Nature of Appealo Attachment 3 - Adjacent Property Ownersr Stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed on
Attachment 3
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
c- ., ( -', ,\ \__)-=_---
Paul R. Dunkelman
Enclosures
Pnalegals
Maria E. Ruiz
CmIaM. Felice
Tracy LeClair
=DIVr-IFN teAlnl 15 \z
iltl
t(lfll r:,?
UU
TOWN
_ ?"i?
OF VAIL
(970) 668-1678 + F'til (970) 668-5121 + Emtoil: carlson2@cohvradn.rct + VailValley + (970) 845.7090
Appeals Form
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road., Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.479.2139 faxl 970.479.2452
web: www.vailgov.com
General Information:
This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental
C.ommission action/decision, A complete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the
Community Development Department within twenty (20) calendar days of the disputed acflon/decision.
Action/Decision being appealed: See attached
Dateof Action/Decision: Eohrrrrry 12. 2007
Eoard or staff person rendering action/decisionr p I enni ng' en.t Enw.iro t commission
Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (yes) (no) ye s
Ifyes, areyou an adiacent propertyowner? (yes) (no)uo
NameofAppellant(s): Covered Bridgre, Inc.
MailingAddress: P-o^ Box 182q, Frisco, CO 80443
Phone: s7o-66R-1 67A
Physical Address in Vail: 2?T Covered Bri rtge Ruildi ngr. Vai l. CO
Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot:_Block:_ Subdivision:S-e.e-atta,c-bed
Appellant(s) Signature(s): ;
(Attach a list of signatures if more space is required).
Submittal Requirements:I' On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an
"aggrieved or adversely affected person".
On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specifo the precise nafure of the appeal. Please
cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed,
Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of
property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners
whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, or other
intervening barfler).
Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.).
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO:
TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF @MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
7s souTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAI|- COLOMDO 81657.
2.
3.
4.
=DV
VAIL
ntrGEr
h1 '"?
TOWN OF
F:\dev\FORMS\PERMITS\Planning\Applicationsuppeals.doc 12-6-200s
Action/Decision being appealed:
The Appellant is appealing the Community Development ruling upholding the
administrative action which determined that, for zoning purposes, Condominium Unit E
of the Covered Bridge Building located at227 Bidge Steet/Lot C & D, and the
southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Vail Village First Filing is located on the "fint floor" or
"steet level" of the Covered Bridge Building and that by affect Condominium Unit D
and Unit F are located on the "first floot'' or "steet level" and the proposed findings of
fact made in support of its ruling.
Legal Description of Appellant's Property inVail: Lot C and D, and the southwestedy 4
feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village, according to the recorded plat thereof, Eagle
County, Colorado.
Attachment I
Aggrieved or Adversely Impacted Person
Appellant is the owner of 227 CovercA Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado. The
Planning and Environmental Commission Community Planning Deparnnent has upheld
the finding of the Community Development Departnent and determined that for zoning
purposes Unit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be
considered a "floor or street level'o of the building. This finding is also applicable to Unit
D and Unit F, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bidge Stree! Vail, Colorado which are
similarly situated units.
It is the Appellant's position that Unit E, Covered Bridge must be considered a
"second flooro'unit. Appellant is adversely affected by the determination that Unit E is
considered a "floor or street level" unit.
A "floor or sheet level" unit has the most restricted uses. The permitted uses of
"floor or steet level" units are retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, lodges,
and type fV employee housing. The permitted use of a second floor unit includes the
permitted uses of the "floor or steet level", but also provides for many additional uses,
including but not limited to lodges, bank and financial institutions, business and office
services,
The ruling severely impacts the Appellant's property rights, its right to use of the
property under the Town Code, the rentability and marketability of the real property and
will result in vacancies.
The property is not in fact at street level. This has been agreed by the Planning
Department. Pedestrians are required to walk up a set of stairs to enter the Unit. The
findings of the Planning and Environmental Commission are that Unit E is actually 3.76
feet above street level. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. This makes
it clear that this Unit cannot be considered at sbeet level, but also makes the unit
unatfractive for the type ofuse required on street level, i.e. retail use.
Appellant presently has a renter interested in renting Unit E for use not permitted
under the Planning Deparhnent ruling. This has limited the ability of the Appellant to
firlly rent Unit E. This ruling impacts use of not only Unit E, but also future use of Units
D andF.
Attachment 2
Nature ofAppeat
The Plannins and Environmental commission [the ,,pEC,,] has upheld thatcommunity Plannin-e Department ruling and determined that for zoning purposes thatUnit E Covered Bridse Buil ding,227 #;;; iLet, Vail, Colorado is tobe considered a
*",ffi,ffi:t"".r%rt " uriia;;. ;;;il* is the owner orzzi ci.,ed Bridge
In making the ruling, th: p_EC adopted the proposed findings of factrecommended by the community planning Department. These findings do not supportthe ruling and result in a clearly L.,on"ouJintrfiletation of the Mruricipal code. Thesefindings of fact include but are not fi;ite; ;ffi fffi;;; urw rvru'rvrp4,
r Due to the sloping topographic condifions.of Bridge street, specifically, and theTown of vail, generally, instances will exist wherE a t"u*rru[i" .irung" inelevation (3.76 feet) from the pedestrian lever to the ,,first floor,, and .,street,, leverofthe building will occur. said condition, however, shail not be construed tocircumvent the Town's longstanding development ouiective oimaintaining anapreserving the character of the Vail-Commercial areas . . .
t lot zoning purposes, the "street level" ofthe building shall be that floor revellocated at elevation g162-6%, as depicted on the appiov"A pfa.rs.
-
o According to the approved (pECJ meeting minutes, dated Februar y 14, 1994, inpart' it is clearly understood by the decisi'on makers that retail spa;e was proposedfor the fust two levels of the buitaing . . .
' Any other interpretation of the Town's horizontal zoning reguration is contrary tothe horizontal zoning intent oftle Code . . .
In considering th".lpp:d, it is important to consider the relevant definitions ofo'basement or garden level,'; i.first floor o. ,t ""i i"u"f,,, and ,,second floor.,,
l ' A "basement or garden level" is defined ,,as that floor of a building that isentirely or substantially below grade.', of note is that the te-, ..street
level,, is not part of the definitiin. l2_78-2,Vail fown Coae .
2' A "frst floor or street level" is defined "as tlrat floor of the building that islocated at grade or street level.,, l2_ZB_3, Vail fo*r Coa".
3 ' The relevant language for usage of "second floor,, is ,.above grade within astructure'" Again the term "street revel" is not used. r2-7F.-+,vail rownCode.
The law on statutory construction is clear.
o In interpreting statutory language-municipal code is statutory language--, the
ruling board and ultimately the Court must effectuate the plain meaning of the
words used by the legislative body. Clear, plain and unambiguous language of
municipal code will be applied as written. Bums v. Citv Council of Denver, 759
P.2d 7 48 (Colo. 1988); see also In re the Marriage of Ciesluk, I l3 P.3d 135, l4l
(Colo. 2005); People v. Yascavage, l0l P.3d 1090, 1093 (Colo. 2004).
r In statutory construction, the more specific statutory terms preempts the more
general statutory terms. Showpiece Homes Com. v. Assurance Company of
America, 38 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2001).
r The municipal government cannot amend the Code in guise of interpreting the
Code. Anderson v. Board of Adjustment , 931 P .2d 5 I 7 (Colo. App. I 996).
r Ultimately, if the matter is appealed to the District Court, the Court is not bound
by the decision of the municipal govemment if there is no competent evidence to
suppoft the decision or if the decision misconstrues or misapplies the law.
Anderson v. Board of Adjustment, 931 P .2d 5 I 7 (Colo. App. 1996).
It is not disputed by the Planning Department that Unit E is a minimum of 3 .7 6
feet above the level of the street. Appeltant disputes that it is not that the rise above street
level is not greater than3.76 feet. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade.
Unit E is neither at street level, nor at grade as is required for a determination that this is a
"first floor level."
In effectuating the plain meaning of the Code, it is clear that this Unit is above
both street level and grade and therefore a "second floor" unit. It is important to note
that lack of modifying term in the definition of "frrst floor or street level." A modifier-
entirely or substantially-is use for the definition of the "basement or garden level", but
there is no similar language for first floor
It is clear the PEC violated additional rules of statutory construction. It ignored
the more specific statutes defining a first floor unit and relied on the more general
provisions regarding the intent of the Code. Specifically, it made findings that general
Town's objective and horizontal intent preempted the specific terms defining "sffeet
level." It ignored the more specific statutes defining a fust floor unit and relied on the
more general provisions regarding the intent of the Code.
To reach it desired ruling, the PEC amended the Code in guise of interpretation.
In eflect, the PEC found that being above street level still meant street level. This is not
supported by the Code and the PEC had to read additional language into the statute to
support there ruling. The PEC added language that being within four feet of street level
was street level.
Even more egregious, the PEC changed the facts to support its ruling. The pEC
found that for zoning purposes it would determine that street level of the building is the
elevation of 8162-6 %. This is the floor level elevation; however, as acknowledged by
PEC (and Community Plaruring) this is not sheet level. This is above the actual street
level. The PEC changed the facts to conform with its ruling.
It is also changed the facts regarding the prior understanding of"decision
makers." Initially, the prior understanding is irrelevant. What the PEC and Town
Counsel is required to do is interpret the statute. However, to support its conclusion, the
PEC states as fact the understanding ofthe prior "decision makers" by referencing
February 14. 1994 PEC meeting minutes. Specifically, it references a concern by a single
DRB representative regarding split level retail. Retail is allowed on any level. This
concem provides no factual support that prior decision makers considered Unit E to be a
"street level" Unit.
The determination by the PEC is contrary to the language of the Town Code, is
legally in error and is, in fact, an arbitrary and capricious decision. This ruling is
contrary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a situation were
retail space would be above street level and, therefore, unattractive to potential users.
The end result would be a perennially vacant unit.
Attachnent 3
Adjacent Property Owners
Covered Bridge Building Association, Inc.
227 Bridge Steet
Vail, CO 81657
P.O. Box 2636
Edwards, CO 81632
Pepi Sport,Inc.
c/o Josef Crramshammer
231 Bridge Steet
Vail, CO 81657
Gastof Gramshammer, Inc.
c/o Pepi Gramshammer
231 E. Gore Creek Drive.
Vail, CO 81657
Mountain Haus Condominium Association
Ath: Barbara Banks
292 E. MeadowDrive
Vail, CO 81657
Slifer Building, LLC
230 Bridge Steet
Vail, CO 81657
Charles David Luther
c/o Craig Denton
227 Bridge Steet
Vail, CO 81657
I I 16 Deer Blvd.
Avon,CO 81620
Charles David Luther
227 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
16 Paddock Road
Edna MN 55436
P & RParhers-Vail, LLC
228Bidge Steet, Units A, C, D & E
Vail, CO 81657
Atbr.: Michael Staughton
228 Bridge Sheet
Vail, CO 81657
Charles & Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust
228Bidge Steet, Units F & G
Vail, CO 81657
411 E. 37tb SL N.
Wichita, KS 67201-2256
PLANN
PUBLIC MEETING
February 12,2007
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
'
PUBLIC WELCOME
MEMBERS ABSENT
BillJewitt
oo
ING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
APPMWE$
MEMBERS PRESENT
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
BillPierce
Anne Gunion
Dick Cleveland
Rollie Kjesbo
NO SITE VISITS
60 minutes
1. A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail
Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning reguirements to
the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from
development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Nina Timm
ACTfON: Tabled to February 26,200T
MOTION: Kjesbo SEGOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6{-0
Nina Timm gave a presentation perthe staff memorandum.
The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment.
Peter Knobel stated that all of the employee housing needs to be provided in the Town of Vail.
He would also like to see any requirements phased in over time so that the market values of
properties can adjusi.
Dominic Mauriello representing Lionshead Inn and other clients expressed concern that the PEC
has not been provided the Rational Nexus or Town Council Memorandums. The same
information is not being shared with PEC as Town Council.
Jim Lamont commented that there is too much growth and redevelopment occurring in Town.
Kaye Ferry stated that the PEC should determine who the employee housing program should
house. Town Council is looking for the PEC's direction and was confused at their last meeting
that they were seeing the item again.
The Commission stated they understand that there is an employee housing issue in the Town,
but expressed concern about the lack of an overall employee housing plan for the Town of Vail.
Concern was expressed about who this housing program is supposed to provide units for and
without that answer it is difficult to know how many units and what type of units are needed.
There was support for linkage programs for both commercial and residential development
Support was also expressed for a funding source, as long as there is an acceptable plan in place
for spending the money. The Commission would like more answers prior to providing a
recommendation to Town Council.
Page 1
-:*1 '': '' '-
I :: ,' .. 10 minutes
2. A requpstJor, a final ieview of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat
Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries,
Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001)
Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden
Planner: WarrenCampbell
AGTION: Approvedwith condition(s)
MOTION: Kjesbo
GONDTTTON(S)
1) The applicant shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the
approval of this platfor Lots 11 and12, Block 7, Bighorn sth Addition, on the basis that
the approved plat created a hardship for developing these lots.
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
John Martin, the architect of the homes to be proposed on the lots, representing the applicant,
explained why the access to the design to be proposed necessitated the shifi in the shared
property line.
There was no public comment.
The Commission expressed there support of the application. Commissioner Cleveland
suggested a condition be placed upon the approval stating that no variances could be requested
in the future as a result of the replat.
3. A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-38,
Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination made by the
Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building
shalf be considered the 'first floor or street level" of the building, located at227 Bridge StreeUlot
C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting
forth details in regard thereto.
Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman, LLC
Planner: George Ruther
AGTION: Uphold
MOTION: Kjesbo
George Ruther made a presentation per the memorandum to the Planning & Environmental
Commission dated, February 12,2007. Based upon review of the evidence and testimony, staff
was recommending that the Commission upholds the administrative action of staff dated,
December 1, 2006.
Paul Dunkelman, representing Covered Bridge Inc. the owner of Condominium Unit E, indicated
that based upon his review of the Zoning Regulations, Condominium Unit E can not be
interpreted as the first floor or street level of the building. Mr. Dunkelman went on to present
photographs of the Cover Bridge Building and urged the Commission to overturn staff's
interpretation.
The Chairman opened the meeting to pubic comment
SECOND: Bernhardt
SEGOND: Cleveland
VOTE:6-0-0
VOTE:6-0-0
Page 2
o
Kaye Ferry, on behalf of the Vail Chamber indicated that Vail's Zoning Regulations were very
clear on the issue. The space in question was and always has been required to be retail by
Zoning. Kaye asked the Commission not to change 34 years of development history in Vail
Jim Lamont indicated that he was the author of the 1975 ordinance cited by the staff. He further
stated that it was underslood that physical conditions such as those existing at the Covered
Bridge Building were contemplated and understood when the ordinance was adopted.
The Commissioners stated their support for the administrative decision of staff determining that
Condominium Unit E in the Covered Bridge Building was the street level of the building and the
second floor as contended by Mr. Dunkelman. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioners
cited the purpose of the 1975 ordinance, the fact that all codes are open to a certain amount of
interpretation, the information presented by staff and the longstanding and consistent application
of the regulation by the Town of Vail. In voting to uphold staffs interpretation, the Commission
cited the findings of fact listed on page five of the staff memorandum
4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Maior
Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions to, and the
renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a reguest for a final review of variances from
Sections 12-7H-1O, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site
Devefopment, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Yariances, to allow for an
underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the
maximum site coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West
Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC06-0074)
Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to February 26,2OO7
MOTION: Gleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6.0-0
5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code,
pursuant to Chapter 12-17,Yaiances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front
and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village West
Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002)
Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to February 26,2007
MOTION: Gleveland SECOND: Berhardt VOTE: 6-04
VOTE: 5-0-1 (Kjesbo)
6. Approval of January 22,2OO7 minutes
MOTION: Cleveland
7. Information Update
8. Adjoumment
MOTION:
SECOND: Bernhardt
SECOND:VOTE:
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to aftend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Page 3
oo
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone forthe Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department / Published February 9,2007, in the Vail Daily.
Page 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 12,2007
A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action,
pursuant to Section 12-3-38, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town
Code, appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that
for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shall
be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, located at 227
Bridge StreeULots C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B,
Block 5-8, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Appellant: Covered Bridge, lnc., represented by Carlson, Carlson and
Dunkelman, LLCPlanner: George Ruther
il.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The Covered Bridge Building, Condominium Unit E, is located at 227 Bridge
StreeUlots C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Vail Village First
Filing.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Section 12-3-38-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail
Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the
authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or
interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the
provisions of the Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code.
PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sections 12-3-38-2 and 12-3-38-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions;
Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic procedural
criteria for an appeal:
A) standing of the appellant;
B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and
C) timeliness of the notice of appeal.
ilt.
tv.
A) Standinq of the Appellant
The appellant, Covered Bridge Inc., is the owner of Condominium Unit E
within the Covered Bridge Building. As the owner of the subject property,
the appellant has standing to appeal the administrative action.
B) Adequacv ofthe Notlce ofthe Apoeal
An Appeals Form was filed on behalf of the Covered Bridge Inc., by
Carlson, Carlson, & Dunkelman. The Appeals Form and the materials
required for its submission have been determined to be complete by the
Community Development Department. A copy of the Public Notice of the
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission February 12, 2007,
Public Hearing was sent to adjacent property owners, pursuant to Section
12-3-3(BX3), Procedures, Vail Town Code.
C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal
The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Code (12-3-38-3,
Procedures) states lhe following:
"A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or
with the department rendering the decision, detennination or
interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision
becoming final. lf the last day for filing an appeal falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or a Town-obserued holiday, the last day for
filing an appeal shall be ertended to the next business day. The
Administratofs decision shall become final at the nert Planning
and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design
related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following
the Administrafols decision, unless the decision is called up and
modified by the Board or Commission.'
A complete Appeals Form was filed with the Community Development
Department within the twenty (20) day requirement.
NATURE OF THE APPEAL
On August 8, 1973, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No.8, Series of
1973, and thereby enacted Zoning Regulations for the Town of Vail. Pursuant to
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, the Commercial Gore I (CC1) zone district was
established.
On September 16, 1975, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 1975. Pursuant to Section 1, Title, of Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1975, this ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning
Ordinance by lmposing HorizontalZoning in CCf. (Exhibit A)
The purpose of this ordinance was "...to maintain and preserue the character of
the Vail commercial arca", "...to continue the balance between the many
commercial and residential uses permitted in the Commercial Core I Distrtc{
and "...to promote a vaiety of retail shops at the pedestrian level."
ln addition to imposing horizontial zoning in CC1 , Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1975, also established definitions for the specific floor levels of a building or
structure. In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 16, the
"basement' or "garden " level of a building shall be defined as,
"that floor of a buibing that is entirely or substantially below grade."
Additionally, "first floor'' or "street" level of a building shall be defined as,
'that floor of a building that is located at grade or street level."
These definitions have remained unchanged and the regulation has been
consistently applied by the Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for
the last 32 years.
On August 27, 1990, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
approved an application for a major exterior alteration to allow for the
redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building pursuant to the development
standards prescribed for development within the Commercial Core I district.
On February 14, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
held a joint worksession meeting with the Town'of Vail Design Review Board.
According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in
part, it is cleady understood by the decision-makers that retail space was
proposed for the first two levels of the building, as required by the Zoning
Regulations. (Exhibit B)
On March 14, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
approved an application for a major exterior alteration to allow for the
"demo/rebuild" of the Covered Bridge Building. According to information
contained in the Town's legal files, in part,
"The proposal calls for major design modifications to the front entrance
(east elevation) of the existino commercial spaces. the creation of lower
level commercial spaces which would be accessib/e from stairs directly on
Bridge Street, the infill of the northwesf secfion of the property, the addition
of an elevator at the west end of the building, and the addition of two upper
level floors to accommodate one condominium."
The major exterior alteration application was approved pursuant to the
development standards prescribed for development with the Commercial Core 1
district.
On April 19, 1994, the Town of Vail Community Development Department
approved a building permit application to allow for the construction of the
Covered Bridge Building. According to the Office Copy of the building permit
plan set dated March 28, 1 994, the "garden' level of the building (Sheet A2.1 ) is
6.08 feet lower than Bridge Street and the "street' level of the building (Sheet
A2.2) is 3.76 feet above the street.
v.
On May 5, 1995, the Covered Bridge Condominiums Map was approved by the
Town of Vail Zoning Administrator and, in part, establishes Condominium Unit E.
According to the Map, Condominium Units E & G comprise that portion of the
building described on the Office Copy of the building permit set as "Lower Retail
C" and "Upper Retrail C". (Exhibit C)
On November 20, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Department received a
letter from Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, requesting that the Town of Vail
provide an interpretation of the specific floor level and, therefore, the permitted
and conditional uses of Condominium Units C & E, Covered Bridge Building,227
Bridge Street, as defined by the Vail Town Code. (Exhibit D)
On December 1, 2006, the Zoning Administrator provided the requested
interpretation. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of
Condominium Units C and E, Covered Bridge Building, the Community
Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file
with the Town of Vail: (Exhibit E)
r Title 12,Zoning Regulations, VailTown Coder Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4119194 ("CBBBPS')r Town's legalfile for Lots B, C and D, Block 58, VailVillage l" Filing
On December 21, 2OO6, the Town of Vail Community Development Department
received a complete Appeals Form filed on behalf of the appellant. (Exhibit F)
REQUIRED ACTION
To Uphold/Overturn/Modify the administrative action.
Section 12-3-38-5, Findings, details the requirements for action taken by the
Planning and Environmental Commission as follows:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review
Board in fhe case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make speciftc
findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it.
These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and
conditions imposed by the requircments of this Title have or have not
been met."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning &
Environmental Commission upholds the administrative action which determined
that, for zoning purposes, Condominium Unit E is located on the "first floor'' or
"street' level of the Covered Bridge Buibing, located at 227 Bridge Street. In
accordance with the information presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits
attached hereto, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission makes the following findings of fact based upon the evidence and
testimony presented:
Due to the sloping topographic conditions of Bidge Sfreef,
specifically, and the Town of Vail, generally, rnstances will exist where
a reasonable change in elevation (3.76 feet) from the pedestrian level
to the "first floor" or "street" level of the building will occur. Said
conditions, however, shall not be construed to circumvent the Town's
longstanding development objective of maintaining and preseruing the
character of the Vail commercial area and promoting a variety of retail
shops at the pedestrian level.
For zoning purposes, the "street level" of the building shall be that
floor level located at elevation 8162'-6 % ", as depicted on the
approved plans.
For zoning purposeg the 'grade" on the east gde of the Covered
Bridge Building shall be 8158.74', not 8152'-8" as suggested by the
appellant.
The east and south gdes of the Covered Bridge Building are entirely
or substantially below grade, as depicted on the approved plans.
The presences of a "garden" level of a building shall rcasonably infer
that some portion or portions of a building or structure will be exposed
forpurposes of visual exposure and ingress and egress.
According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February
14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers that
retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building, as
required by the Zoning Regulations. The definitions of "basement' or
'Qarden" level and Tirst floot'' or "street" level have remained
unchanged and the regulation has been consistently applied by the
Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for the last 32 years.
To except the appellant's arguments will fundamentally after the
character of Vail Viilage and the development objectives of the Town.
For instance, after 32 years, it would now be interpreted that existing
first floor and slreet level retail businesses such as Russe//'s, Ore
House, Vendetta's, Red Lion, Mooseb Caboose, Vail T-Shirt
Company, Axel's, Sweef Bas[ Rucksack, Laughing Monkey and
numerous other retail businesses could be converted to non-retail
uses such as business offices and professional ot?bes. This change
rn use is clearly contrary to the adopted goals, objectives and policies
of the Town of Vail.
Any other interpretation of the Town's horizontal zoning regulation is
contrary to the hoizontal zoning intent of the Code and development
goals and palicies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise
would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout
the Town's crucial commercial core areas.
o
vll. ExHtBtTs
A. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975
B. Approved Meeting Minutes, in part, February 14, 1994.
C. Covered Bridge Condominiums Map, dated May 5, 1995.
D. Letter to Wanen Campbell, Community Development Department, from
Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, dated November 20, 2006.
E. Letter to Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman, Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, from
George Ruther, Town of Vail, dated Deeember 1, 2006.
F. Appeals Form, dated December 21, 2(X)6.
;lo.I
ORDINANCE NO. 15
Series of 1975
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE
SECTIONS 8-200 'PERMITTED USES" 8.300
"COND]T]ONAL USES", 8.400 "ACCESSORY
USES'', AND 8.510 'PARKING AND LOADINO",
RELATING TO COMMERCIAL CORE 1. DISTRICT,
BY THE ENACTMENT OF NEW SECTIONS 8.200."PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECI-Frc", 8.300 'coNDrTroNAL usES - GENERAL",
8.400 "ACCESSORY USES - GENERAL", AND
8.510 'PARKING AND LOADING", SPECIEYING
THAT PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY
USES AI,ID PARKING IN COt'tME RC IAL CORE 1
D]STRICT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO AND DETER-
MINED BY SPECIFIED FLOOR I,EVELS
WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the intent of
the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to maintain and
preserve the nature and character of the VaiI corunercial area,
which is deslgnated as zonj-ng district Commercial Core 1 District,
with a mixture of residential and conrnercia.I uses;
WHEREAS, j-t has been and continues to be the intent of
the Town Council to promote and protect said area as a pedestrian
access area and to discourage vehicular use thereini and
WHEREAS, because of changing conditions, the Town Coun-
ciI coosiders that the municipal qovernment must protect the char-
acter of said area and that this ordinance is necessary to continue
the ba-Lance between the many commercial and residential uses per-
mitted in the Cormercial Core l- District, to prevent entire build-
ings therein from becoming conmercial space at the expense of
dwelling and acconrnodation units, and to pronote a variety of
retail shops at the pedestrian l-eve]- i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS I
Section 1- Title.
Exhibit A
This ordinance sha1l be known as the "Ordinance Amending
Zoning Ordinance by Imposing Horizontaf Zonj-ng in CCL'|,
or
Ord, 16, 1975
Commj-ss j-on Report.
The amendment
of the Zoning Ordinance
the Planning ConYnission
nance .
i
Paqe 2
procedures prescribed in Section 21.500
have been fulfill-ed, with the report of
recommendino the enactment of this ordi-
Section 2.Amendment Procedures Fulf ill-ed; Pfanning
Section 3. Amen&nents to Zoning Ordinance.
Sections 8.200, 8.300, 8.400, and 8.5,|0 of the Zoning
Ordinance, ordinance No, 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of vail,
Colorado, are hereby amended to read as foflows:
A. Section 8.200. Permitted and Conditional Uses -
Specific.
A. Permitted and conditional- uses - basement
or garden level within a structure:
l-. The "basement" or "garden level"
shall be defined as that floor of a buil-d-
ing that is entirely or substantially
below grade.
2. The following uses shall- be per-
mitted in basement or qarden levels within
a structure:
a. Retail shops and establ-ishments,
including the fol lowing:
A^h.ral al^ ^ra<
Art supply stores and galleries
Bakeries and con fectioneries,
restricted to preparation of
nr^.i,r,-'r- c <nani f i nr'l I rr fnr c,e l a
nn rha nromi eac
Book stores
Camera stores and photographic studios
Candy stores
Chinaware and glaseware stores
o,.
Ord. 16, 1.975 Page 3
Delicatessens and speciafty food
stores
Drug stores and pharmacies
Florists
' Gift stores
Hobby stores
Jehrelry stores
Health food stores
teather qoods stores
Music and record stores
. Newsstands and tobacco stores
Stationery stores
Sportinq goods stores
Toy stores
Variety stores
Yardage and dry goods stores
b- Personal services and repair shops,
including the following:
Barber shops
Beauty shops
Sna11 appliance repair shops
Tailors and dressmakers
Travel and ticket aqencies
c. Eating and drinking esta.b.Listunents,
includj.ng the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food
service, restricted to PrePara-
tion of products specifically for
sale on the prefiLises
Cocktail lounges and bars
Coffee shops
Fountalns and sandwich shops
Restaurants
Ord. L6, 197 5
OI
Page 4
d. Professional offices, business
offices, and studios
e. Banks and financial institutions
f. Additional uses determined to be
s'ni'ar fo r)ernif t-ed uses described in
subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, in
accordance with the provisions of Section
2L.2OO of this ordinance, so long as they
do not encourage vehicul-ar traffic
9. Lodges
3, The following uses shall- be pernitEed
in basement or garden fevels within a structure,
subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
in accordance with the provisions of ArticLe 18
of this ordi-nance.
a. Meeting rooms
b. Household appl iance stores
c. Liquor stores
d. Luggage stores
e. Radio and TV stores and repair shops
t. Multiple- fami l- y housing
g. Theatres
B. Permited and conditional- uses - first fl"oor
slreec level- within a structure:
l-. The "first floor" or "street level" shafl
be defined as that floor of the building that is
located at grade or street level.
2. The following uses shafl be permitted on
the first fl-oor or street 1evel floor within a
structure:
a. Retail stores and establishments,
including the following:
o
Ord. 16, 197 5 Page 5
l\pparel stores
Art supp]y stores and galleries
Bakeries and confectioneries,
restricted to preparation of
products specifj cally for sale
on the orem iSeS
Book stores
Camera stores and photoqraphic studios
Candy stores
Chinaware and glassware stores
Delicatessens and specialty food
stores
Drug stores and pharmacies
Florists
cift shops
Hobby stores
Jehrel ry stores
Leather goods stores
Music and record stores
Newsstands and tobacco stores
Sporting goods stores
Stationery stores
Toy stores
Variety stores
Yardage and dry goods stores
b. Eating and drinking establishments,
includinq the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with
food service, restricted to
preparation of products speci-
fically €or sale on the premises
Cocktail l-ounqes and bars
ll
\o,-i
Ord. 16, 1975 Page 6
Coffee shops
Fountains and sandwich shops
Restaurants
c. Lodges
d- Additional uses determined to be
similar to permitted uses described in
subparagraphs (a) and (b) above, in accor-
dance with the provisions of Sectiorr 2L.20o
of this ordinance, so long as they do not
encourage vehicuLar traffic.
3. The following uses shall be permitted on
first floor or street level floor within a struc-
f l,f6 cl,r-\i^^+ +^ i a6,,1nce of a conditional_ use
Permit in accordance with the provisions of Arti-
cle 18 of this ordinance,
a. Liquor stores
b. Professionaf offices, business offices,
and studios
c. Banks and financial institutions
d. Personal services and repair shops,
including the following:
Barber shops
Beauty shops
Business and office services
Tailols and dressnakers
Travel and ticket agencies
Smal-l- appLiance repair stores
e. Mul-tipLe-fardly residential dwellinqs
f. Househofd appliance stores
S. . Luggage stores
h. Radio and Tv stores and repair shops
i, Theatres
Ord. 1,6, 1975
t
Page 7
c, Permitted and conditonal uses - second
floor above grade within a structure:
1. The following uses shall be permitted
on the second floor above grade within a
structure; provided, however, that a Condi-
tional Use Permit will be required in accor-
dance with Article 18 of this ordinance for
any use which elinuinates any existing dwel-l-ing
or acconnodation unit or any portion thereof.
a. Multiple-famil-y residential dwelling
b. Lodges
c. Professional offices, business
offices, and studios
d. Banks and financial institutions
e. PersonaL services and repair shops,
including the following:
Barber shops
Beauty shops
Business and office services
Tailors and dressmakers
Travel and ticket agencies
f. Retail stores and establishments/
including the following:
Apparef stores
Art supp]y stores and galleries
Bakeries and confect ioneries,
restricted lo preparation of
products specificaffy for safe
on the premises
Book stores
Camera stores and photographic studios
Candy stores
Chinaware and glassware stores
i
Ord. 16, 1975
o_
Page 8
De I icatess ens and specialty food
stores
Drug stores and pharmacies
Florists
Gift stores
Hobby stores
Jewelry stores
L€ath€r goods stores
Music and record s tore s
Newsstands and tobacco stores
Photographic studios
Sporting goods stores
Toy stores
Variety stores
Yardage and dry goods stores
e. Eating and drinking establishments,
including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with
food service, restricted to
preparation of products speci -
fically for sale on the premises
Cocktai I lounges and bars
Coffee shops
Fountains and sandwich shops
Restaurants
2. The following uses shall be permitted on
second floors above gfade, subject to the issuance
of a Conditional Usc Perrnit in accordance with
the provisions of Article l8 of this ordinance:
a. Meeting rooms
b. Liquor stores
c. Household appliance stores
Ord. 16, 1975 Page 9
d. Radio and TV sales and repair shops
e. Luggage stores
f, Theatres
D. Pefmitted and conditional uses - any floor
above the second floor above grad€ within a structure:
1- The following uses shall be permitted
on any floor above the second floor above grade:
^. Multiple- family residential dwellings
b. Lodges
2. The following uses shall be permitted on.
any floor above the second floor above grade,
subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit in accordance with the provisions of
A rt ic I e l8 of this ordinance:
a. Retail stores and establishments.
including the following:
Apparel stores
Art supply stores and galleries
Bakeries and confectioneries,
restri cted to preparation of
products specifically for sale
on the premises
Book stores
Camera stores and photographic studios
Chinaware and glassware stor€s
Delicatessens and specialty food
stores
Drug stores
Florists
Gi ft shops
Hobby stores
Household appliance stores
Jewelry stores
(- o--
Ord. 15, 1975
o
Page I0
Leather goods stores
Luggage stores
Music and record stores
Newsstands and tobacco stores
Photographic studio s
Stationery sto re s
Toy stores
Variety stores
Yardage and dry goods stores
Liquor stores
Radio and TV stores and repair shops
Sporting goods stores
b. Eating and drinking establishments,'
including the following:
Bakeries and de lioate ssens with
food service, restricted to
preparation of products spec i -
fioally for sale on the premises
Cocktail lounges and b ars
Coffee shops
Fountains and sandwich shops
Restaufants
c. Professional offices, busines s
offices, and studi o s
d. Banks and financial institutions
e. Personal services and repair shops,
including the following:
Barber shops
Beauty shops
Business and offices services
Smal I appliance repair shops
Tailors and dressmakers
Travel and ticket agencies
Ord. 16. 1975 Page 1l
f, Theatres
lt. Additional uses determined to be
similar to permitted uses described in
subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, in
accordance with the provisions of Section
2l .2OO of this ordinance, so long as they
do not encourage vehicular traffic
B. Section 8.300. Conditional Uses - General.
The following uses shall be permitted, subject
to the issuance of a Conditional Use Pcrnit in
accordance with the provisions of Article l8 of
this ordinance:
a. Ski I i ft s and tows
b. Public utility and public service
uses
c. Public buildings, grounds, and
facilities
d. Public park and recreational facil-
ities
c. Section 8,400, Accessory Uses - General.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
a. Swimming pools, patios, or other
recreational facilities customarily inciden-
tal to permitted residential or lodge uses
b. Outdoor dining areas operated in
conjunction with permitted eating and drink-
ing establishments
c. Home occupations, subject to issuance
of a home occupation permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordi-
nance
d. Oth6r uses customarily incidental and
accessory to permitt€d or conditional uses,
and necessary for the operation ther€of.
Ord. 16, 197 5 Page l2
D. Section 8.510. Parking and Loading.
Off- street parking and loading shall be pro-
vided in accordance with Article l4 of this ordi-
nance. A t least one-half of the required parking
shall be located within the main building or
buildings. Parking within buildings shall be
rcstricted to the basement. No parking or loading
area shall be located in any required front setback
afea.
Section 4. Devclopment Factors Pertaining to Conditional
{Jse Pcrmits.
In considering in accordance with Article l8 of the
Zoning Ordinance an application for a Conditional Use Permit within
Commercial Core I District, the following development factors shall
be applicable:
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial
Core I D i str ict.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commer-
cial Core l District.
C. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking,
D. Control of delivery, pick-up, and service
vehicles.
E. f)cvclopment of public spaces for use by
pedcstrians.
F. Continuance of the various commercial, resi-
dential, and public uses in Commercial Core 1
District so as to maintain the existins charactcr
of said area.
G. Control quality of construction, architectural
design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I
District so as t o maintain the existins character
of said area.
o-
Ord. 1 6, 1975 Page 13
H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and
other factors on the environment of Commercial
Core l District.
Section 5. Continuing Enforcement of Amended Sections
as to Prior Acts.
The amendments of the aforesaid sections of the Zoning
Ordinance shall not bar the enforcement of said sections as to an
act or acts her€tofore committed or the prosecution and punish-
ment of an act or acts heretofore cornmitted or omitted in viola-
tion of said sections; said sections amended by this ordinance
shall remain in full force and effect in the form preceding this
ordinance for the purposes of sustaining any and all actions to
enforce the same, suits, proceedings, prosecutions instituted,
and the penalties imposed therefor which arose prior to the effec-
tive date of this ordinance.
Section 6. Repeal of Any Conflicting Section.
Afiy sections or parts of sections of the Zoning Ordinance
or other ordinances of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in confliot with
this ordinance or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, pro-
vided, however, that the repeal of any section or parts of sec-
tions of said ordinances shall not revive any other section of
said ordinances heretofore repealed or superceded,
Section 7. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect five days after publi-
cation following the final passage hereof.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READINC, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 2nd day of September, 1975, and a
public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular
meeting of the Touar Council of the Toum of Vail, Colorado, on the
o!d. 16, 1975
15th dey of s.pt€Db.r,
irg of tb. ToYtr.
llllsT:
Prg€ 14
rt 7:30 P.l{,, in th. Municipal Build-1975,
\
Ord. 16, 1975
INTRODUCED, READ ON
AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN
t97 5.
Page 15
SECOND READING, APPROVED, ENACTED,
FULL, this l6rh day of September,
Exhibit B
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February '14, 1994
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Greg Amsden Kristan PriE
Bill Anderson Tom Moorhead
Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica
Diana Donovan Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Langewalter Jim Curnutte
Allison Lassoe Randy Stouder
Dalton Williams Russ Forrest
1. A request for a conditional use to allow lor a Type ll Employee Housing Unit to be
located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21 , Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing.
Applicant Chris KempfPlanner: Randy Stouder
Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow for a Type ll
i Employee Housing Unit with the two conditions stated in the staff memo.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like the Design Review Board (DRB) to carefully
review the proposed architecture for the project since it is somewhat unusual and
different lrom what is present in the neighborhood.
Dalton Williams agreed with Diana's comment.
Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit to
allow for a Type ll Employee Housing Unit per the staff memo and the two conditions
contained on Page 6 of the staff memo with a directive to the DRB to carefully review
the architecture ol this project to ensure that it is harmonious with the character ol the
Town of Vail. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request for
a conditional use permit to allow for a Type ll Employee Housing Unit.
2. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed lext amendments to Chapler 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open
Space District; and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Jim Curnutte
Plaoning and Envhonmer al Commission
Februaty 1,1,1994 1
3. A request for a joint worksession with the PEC and DRB for a major CCI exterior
alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building localed al 227
Bridge StreeVlots C and D and a part ol Lot B, Block 5-8, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica made a presentation per the statf memo. He stated that this proposed
redevelopment involves no variances at this time. He summarized Section lX,
Discussion, of the staff memo.
Ned Gwathmey, the architect for this project, stated that they have been "wrestling with
this site" since 1990. He said that the applicant has spent a great deal of time
studying the feasibility ol this project
Bill Anderson stated that the view corridor line should be adjusted to accommodate a
sloped roof for the Covered Bridge Building. He also supported moving the building 5
feet to the west property line.
Saundra Spaeh, architect representing Pepi Gramshammer, stated that Pepi was
concerned with the fifth floor.
Greg Amsden stated that he was concerned wiilr the proposed staging area in the
pocket park.
Mike Mollica explained the staging plan to the PEC.
Ned Gwathmey stated that they had approached Pepi about doing the Covered Bridge
Building construction at the same time as Pepi's building is under construction.
Saundra Spaeh stated that Pepi is adamant about not using the area behind his
building as the staging area for this project.
Greg Amsden inquired whether moving the building height interpretation line was an
option.
Mike Mollica stated that staff was open to amending the line and discussed the staff's
reasons.
Peter Dan, of East West Partners, stated that the applicants were open to shifting the
fourth and fifth floors to the west.
Allison Lassoe inquired whether the building height intepretation line could be moved
horizontally.
Ned Gwathmey stated that such a change to the project would delay construction for at
least one year.
Plannlng and Envhonmeotal Commlselon
Fsbruary t4, 1904 6 _
Dalton Williams asked the applicant that if the project was approved, could they be
flexible on which rool form they used, depending on whether an encroachment into
View Corridor #1 is approved.
Ross Bowker stated that this would be okay with them,
Bob Borne, DRB representative, asked whether the building would be out of the view
corridor if the building was shifted back 5 feet to the west.
Mike Mollica stated that the building would still be located in the view corridor.
Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, stated that he felt moving the building back
5 feet would help this project. He questioned whether the whole building would have
to be moved back.
Ned Gwathmey stated that they could not do this and still satisfy the ADA requirements
for disabled access.
Jeff winston stated that a small portion of flat roof may be acceptable but that it must
nol appear to be flat. He said that another concern that he had was that the buiHing
did not appear to be one piece ol architecture and he suggested that the applicant tie
the roofs together in some way so that the dilferent sections of the building do not look
so segmented. He stated that the Town did not intend for the line of View Corridor #1
to effect this site in the way that it has. He would like to see the upper portion ol the
building be reworked in order to avoid the flat roof as well as tie it to the rest ol the
building. He said that the proposed design of the building resembles the Gateway
Building and that the architectural design needed to relate better to the Village core.
Jeff suggested a more unified approach to the building. He added thal he also
supported the applicant pursuing an encroachment into View Corridor #1 .
Dalton Williams supported changing the building height interpretation line, or
eliminating it entirely.
Mike Mollica stated that the PEC and staff have some flexibility to modify the line. He
stated that the 60%-40% for roofs was a hard and fast standard that had to be
lollowed. A variance would be required if the roof departed from this standard.
Sally Brainerd, DRB representative, stated that her concerns are mainly with the
storelront. She is concerned with the split-level retail. She stated that the building
design is not in keeping with Vail's guidelines. She stated that she did not feel the
separateness of the upper levels was ideal. She agreed with Dalton's comments about
the building height.
Bob Borne agreed with Dalton's comments. He added that he was concerned about
the construction activity occurring during the summer.
Planning and Environmenlal commission
February 14, 1904
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the previous comments concerning the roof
height line. He said that he would like to see the building go back to the west at least
5 feet. He added that the staging for this site would be ditficult. He added that he
understood Ned's concerns about proceeding through the variance process. Bill said
he would be willing to approve the project if Ned broughl the roof issue back to the
PEC for a view corridor encroachment assuming the top portions of the buiHing were
shifted to the west.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the building height interpretation line
moved. She said the building needs to be moved back and that this will help widen
Bridge Street in this area. She felt the criteria for view corridor encroachment could be
met but not if the view corridor line became the height limit. She stated that an
alternate location would need to be determined for trash removal and that it should not
be via Bridge Street.
Greg Amsden stated that he did not want to see the building height interpretation line
set at this stage of the game. He was in lavor of shifting the building bach. He added
that he would like to see the staging area located to the west of the Covered Bridge
Building.
Jeff Bowen stated that the view corridor has been considered from the Transportation
Center and that the view from upper Bridge Street is also affected. He said that he
would like to see a different roof lorm. He added that he would like to see the building
dropped down trom the north so that the building will appear less massive.
Allison Lassoe said she would like to see the building pulled back 5 leet and that this
would help the building appear less massive. She stated that she felt that Dalton's
previous suggestion could help the roofs for this project.
Dalton Williams inquired whether there was a way to internalize the trash removal on
the Bridge street. He said that he likes the way the front ot the building looks pushed
back but that he is concerned what that would do to the Bridge Sireet shopping
experience.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the other Board members comments-
She added that more integration of the root forms is needed. She is concerned about
how the roof form will look. She said that shifting the building back 5 feet is positive.
She stated that trash removal will be difficult because this site is "land locked". She
added that the staging for this project will be ditficult and she did not feel ihat it would
be acceptable to lose a mature tree due to construction staging. She said that she felt
that there was a way to do this project without a height variance. She stated that the
diagonal line could be stepped.
Ned Gwathmey stated that he did not want to advise his clients to go fonnrard with this
variance. He said that it would be helpful for them to have an interpretation of the
ordinances from the PEC. He said that this site is very tight.
Plannlng and Envlronmentd Commbdon
Fsbruary 14, 1994
Dalton Williams suggested that they eliminate the diagonal line and go off of Bridge
Street with the 60%-40% and a view corridor encroachment.
All the members of the PEC agreed that this was acceptable.
Ned stated that this would not necessarily help them get this project going.
Kristan PriE stated that staff had sat down with the architects for this project previously
and it was deemed by the Town Attorney that a modification to the 60%-40% rule is
not possible without a variance.
Peter Dan stated that he would like to shift the building back and go off of Bridge
Street to determine heights. He added that they would like to connect the rools on the
fourth and fifth floors together.
Bob Borne summarized that the applicant wants to get this project going and that the
main issue seems to be the roof and that the PEC seemed to be generally in favor of
the design of the building and that some caveat be made regarding the roof'
Jetf Bowen stated thal the Covered Bridge Building is the entrance to Bridge Street
and the Village and that he would like to see the building mass lessened, the buiEing
shifted back, and the roof element changed.
Jeff Winston stated that the building design was a resull of the diagonal line and that if
the line were to be eliminated, then the roof forms could be integrated.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the transition ol siding to stucco.
Dalton Williams made a molion that the PEC has reviewed the prior PEC determination
regarding the building height interpretations and that after careful review, and that
since View Corridor No. 1 determines the Covered Bridge Building maximum height,
the building is restrained by the view corridor. Due to this, the height calculation can
.be taken from Bridge Street with the understanding that the mass will be pushed to the
west and that the building be stepped back.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
Kathy Langenwalter restated Dalton Williams motion.
A 7-0 vote approved the height determination lrom Bridge Street as stated above.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that there were still issues and details that had not been
discussed at this worksession which would need to be discussed in two weeks.
Plsnning and Envlronn€nl!l Commission
F€bruary lil, 1994
co
z
tr
Ltl
U)
t4
E\
:
Eaa
Ra(.)
rlr$aqq
arq
tr(
Hab
Exhibit G
aa{5.*s'
;sr
t4.
10 ft io t.r@
SCALE: 1" = 10'
D€V€LIIPIENI SIGNIS
. .rght to c6pl.tr rrT.@emttq5 Indtcct.d o thre codorirG
. rrght to sta.lrYr.b 6,tr .{oht ro .nt I Inrled Eqnonr{..Fit rlthln th. rIt. .rsht to mlntorn 301.3 otfrc?
dnd frv. rl$r cdv9.tlrrng tha
.d<l'ltn rd Pfo].<i. *5J*t toth. rrn|tdtr6.r '.tqtld rn th.
D.<lqclro. ao. Cov...d E. I de.
. .r9H ro |/Er .r..irnti th.oth rrE
co.s6 .l.P.tt to. th! prpo6. of
mrrrDg l.p.o!!..nt5 to th. p.oJ?cl,
rcbl.ct 'lo tf, I Inrt tloni tt.t?d
In th! lhc{r.qtr!. fof cov.r.d lrr.lc.
I ri9ht tcnolnrom mo.og.h.nr ofti..
ulll DEVELoPNENT f, rCrTS
A r.r!ht io c6pt.t. rl!.qv.Mtt o.
Indr6t.d d th!s.ddonrnr!r iaer .r!'tt to .'ndrvrlb 6rtr.rght to c..ot. treat},!.. drts o.
r.rght to nor.trri o^. rrin
orv..lr.rno rh. c.ddri r6 p.oJ.<t
;6L(t-r6-rh' I inrtdr'6' ;rai.d i^
ttE lrclr.rti6 tr cor.r.d 8.rd0.
Cdrbi r. r 6rr .r€ht to v' sr.lr.nt|thF4oh ih.cm rl.fii, ra it!' p!.Pot ofRrr^o r.0.ov6dt5 t th. FoJ.ct.9*J?(t to il1. lritiatr6r ltat.l InttF D!<lo.alrci fo. Cov....l l.tdo.cod6rnr$r
Cove..d E r.lo. lvtldr.g, Ltd..
d ColF6do I Inrtod p.rtnershlP
l5 H reh tdnds L.6"
B€ov.. C.erk, CO 81640
I]€DICAIIO! '0a XORTGAGE I1('LD[F OR DEED Of IRUSI
../*lrorea tr.rs -l{la"y "e --(#at-L q.o.. rgg:fl
t-dnd T I t {. 6rJcr.!.i.. Coipdif
lO€ S. t.o^!oe. Rodd l.rlvo' t, C[ 41657
"-. t4*4-A'"<"'.---
€sr*i -6F-c$..1 alnLE OFera-,{*--aF;i;i-;;;;-;;i-iiii;t---------
soRvEtoR s cEiTtttcatE
I .b h...by c..ilfy th.t I .n a Pior.ctro.tol Ldn.l Sup.yr..Crri...C 6d? th. lorr o? tt Stotr ol CoLo.qcb, t|ot thrtcondo||rnts iop 15 t.v., <or..ct .^d <oipt.i. or tord out,platt.d, d.d rcoir.l dnd rho$ rrr..on / thlt ech cs.lofrrnrk mpros mcr adon s accfoi! tq.v.y of sord 9..opfrty by R ond hcl.r!y 5r/p..vlrron oncl <r..ctly rfrcyr th. ho/lroitol oDcl v.ri'catlac.troll dnd d'iss165 oa th. bsrldr.g contornrne tfr
co{rdoirorun !hrtr, tll. coACoirn16 Frtr, pr.c.lr, ond .or.i..l3
da tard condoirnrQ Dp, cnd th. FR..rl rr '.toLr.l !a'dr th. g.o'.dIn toi9l rdnc. rrth opplrq.bt...gulalldrt lov.fnlDg ttl. rLSdrvltrqoa rond. I tcth.. crtrfv thol thri cdd{DLarb Fo (6tor.5 oltra rond. I tcth.. crtrfv thol thri cdd{DLarb Fo (6tor.5 oltrtrfor*troD ..qu r.iot coro. Fft sr6t. 3{.1lfoFr$\
CERTIFICiTf, IT D€IICAIIDI AN! II9I€RSII'F
Knoi qll mo by th.t. prc3.nnt thqt Co!.r.cl Brrd!. 8u {dlng,
l-1.1,, o Coiq.do ltFrlrd po.tn..lhrp, ber.9 on.. In f€e 5rDplrof alt ihct r.ol p.opc.ty rrtuct.d In th. Torr of Vd,l, Ed!|.Corty, Cotroob, d.rcr rbe.l s ?ol torr,
Lat c and Lol d o.d th. soulhraria.ly for f..l oa Lot b, lloc*51, v.rl vrlt60., fr..t Frlrng. o<cord.re to tt noD lhr.ofr.co-.Ld r. th. ofl'.. of th. E.el. Cwnty, Coltodo, Ctrk o^d
R!co.d.., co6tornrnC 0,r073 ocr.r, io.. o. t.st.
{o?9 h.r.loy.vbr,rt thrs'Covcr.d !.t.lg. con cloh I n I unt ' to th.p.ovrsrd5 ot th. Co.rdort^rur| D.<l...trm aor Cer..d Erlde€
Con.loFrnr6i ..co.d.d In Sook ----- ot Poe. -----
Ere<ltcd thrr -41 a"" "r --l1fL1----------------, 4.0.. ree'5.
IIILE C6FIIFICAlE
Lond Trtt.66.ont.c Coipony do.r h...by c?.trfy thqt.!h. tttt.to oll lotrrCr rhon Loon thr! trndl rlot rra. b..n .xonrn.d o.d r!*'Y'Eia A^t*-a t*uzoar- Lrn ^ &-dtN' t 'rtnE^
ZONING AI]IIINISTRAIOR C€iT II ICATg
T||ri co.d.6rnt6 ado rt h.r.bv d@.ov.d
z6jl.-Ad!'! rrt.qto; tnrr 5F-- ioy or
l, ih. r'cb.rr!n..1, do h...by c..rrfy lhot ih.6i'.c oioot oftal.r dr a^d peyoblr or ot ------, r+6. aLlpo.c.l3 oa..ol .r'tot. d..cr tbrd s tht. so6doir.rle.o9 o.f pard
0rNErs.
NORTGA6EE.
Bf'
a,D,a.F,(t
I
**r(-
nit ' T}l. .ffr.. of 1h.3. .tChte tt aaJ.cr b 1h
16'nc r.g,lo!tont o.d oll otttr.oPtr..Dl..rau'..6i3 rnps.d by i$. ls o, vorl.
X.or dtl i.n by th.t. p..5entr thcl al.st8dn! of vall, bPrng th.
b.n.frcro.y of . .L.d oa t.urt on itu1 .rqt orop..ryth. Torn ol Ycrl, Eoql. Cooty, CoLo.ado, detc.lbld qs rollds.
Lot c ond Loi d..d trE routhr.si?al, tor a..t ot Lot b, lloc&
5-!, V.'{ Vr(loc.. Fr.rt trl'^c, qc.ordrng to lh. FoP +x./.of
..cd/ded r^ the oa..(. or u.. €oel. Co6!), Coto..do, Cle.t ord
R.co.d.r. c66t.rhrng 0.1073 .c.er, io.r or 1.6t.
hc."by cohsents io th. provl!|o.3 of thrs ' cov!.rd E. cl9.Cdddrnrlis'd.d th. CoCoFln ci !.ctorotron fo. Cov.r.d Errdgr
Coo.loar^runr r.co.cLd In lool ----- st Pqge -----
lx€.uted thl. -!E ^, ", trA/-----------------. s.o.. sg{.
I rrlllqnrr of vorl
BLOCK 58
lot o
.lw rrer(AY, a 2a. t ol-vrll
\,".!lot b
1oa
BOnCal
&c.r!ln! r. C.l4!d. lor yo! mu.r !ond4. .tr r.961 .ctlt 6o..d
up.n 6t .l.tkt in l}li. a!to.y inhh ur4 rd. .n., tou nd
<[.cd. *h c.a.ct, l. nc n.n! o.r dr o.lio. b.... los .t'y
ad-t k thi. sF b. .@f.d
d,ct. ol lhr dritqtin thdn h..d-
-f* /
lt'
srrre or-(r[/!{ld& --, >
.or"r, * -€.c4.?--- --- i"
I do rr..5, <..trtt ttFt.ll rtrucifol conFon?iir oa 0l{ bqrldrne.
co.rqrirno of coxirrrre my 6rir Grht.{ by ttt. D.<l...rtcr fe
CM..d irrce. C..cbn'.r6..nd by in'r csdonrnt6 ncD..t
rlart.'ntr! I Ly <oi9l.t.C,
t|lr.oa I hcv. !.i iy h.6d c^d irol thrr -4:-- doy or
!qi.n thrr ----- dcy ol a.D, 199--.
i;a;a;a.-;a-E;6i;-aolJrit;-a;i*"d;
CLEA( *D REC(nDER'S C€FTIFICA'E
'lhr3.odo.rnr6 noo ro. trl.d ao. rrcord r^ .lh. oatrc. of th.C'..|{ oc t.<-n. oh th'!----_ d.y of ----------.-.-------A,D,, 199--, ot -----o'cL6<k ---r, F.co.dd qnd.. RE.ptlor [olook ----- cl Pqg. -----
Condodr.16 t.cld.dt'on r..riLd rn look ----- qt Po€. -----,
Cl.rk o.C R.co.{.r€rgr! C4rly, Colro.lo
lv'-----------------
,S CTR]IFICAIE
0F4
'|
COVERED BRIDCE CONDOMINIUMS
LOT c, LOT d, AND THE SOUTH 4 FEET AF LOT b, BLOCK 5_8, VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING
TOWN OF VAIL, EACLE COUNTY, COLORADO
MltEs,
(l) Dqt. of Su.v.v, D.ctfiber, 1994(e) St...l Add,'.t'' 227 3.rCo. Stre?t(1, lorri of le..lngt tt o tln. cd..cirng th? e,r3tl^9noi!.ht9 F.*r.o th. r,ll l/16 <fnrf oa s.ctro.' €,
Tss- Raov of it| Srxth P.lr. dnd tf* Cl l/16 co^.. oa
rord S.ctrm a b.r^e S00'09'E.
n- l^clr..i.r s.t no. .t .tbo. od 016r^6 .op
I L. s. a6196(5) Et.ntro.: ihorn ht..on or. bds.d d Torh oa Vo I vr?r
po161 no. 6 bo.k5rghi polnt. et.vctroa . €160.9 , onfrl. rlth thc Totn or Volt.(6) 43.horn h€rcon, 'C.E.' Indrcotr3 Cooion EtEdn-i, a5
th. rdE .r. d.trned r. th? !clo.atl6.(7) A5 rhorn h.r.o^. 'l C.E.' indl(.t.5 Ltnlt"d Codon€l.mnt, .s irr. ton. oru d.ar.ed In ih. t.ciq.otron
<A) E.rfrnts trbn @ D.r Lqnd lltt. Gl/...ntt€ Coigony, |tl.
oolr.v io, v?ra77 dot d ac.rl al, l99a
(t) Th. cddot.rui 4rts llsted belot q.. a!b.l..i io c.tlnl^
deve l.pr'rnt rrltrtr, ot Indt.oirdl
.9,ry
^\Y
o'<
- t2aa5
c c. 1995
SHEET ]
Ronald, W. Carlson
ludith James Cmkon
Paul R. Dnlkehrun
Christopher D . Tomchuck
I
Carlson,
COPY
Cmkon I Dwlkebnnl,
Attorneys at l-aw
Drake bmding + 975 N . Ten MiIe Driue + P.O. Box 1829
r^risco , Colorado 80443
o
L.L.C.
November 20.2006
Wanen Campbell
Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building
227 Bridge Street
Vail, CO
Dear Mr. Campbell:
We would request that the Town of Vail provide an interpretation of the specific
floor level and, therefore, the permitted and conditional uses of Condominium Unit E,
Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street as defined by the Vail Town Code. In
providing this interpretation, we believe that it is also necessary to provide an
interpretation of the specific floor level of Condominium Unit C, Covered Bridge
Building.
It is clear from the language of the Vail Town Code that Unit E must be
considered a second floor unit and Unit C must be considered a first floor unit. The
relevant definitions in this determination are the terms "basement or garden level," "first
floor" and "second floor," as follows:
l.A "basement or garden level" is defined "as that floor ofa building that is
entirely or substantially below grade." Ofnote is that the term "street
level" is not part ofthe definition.
A "first floor or street level" is defined "as that floor ofthe building that is
located at grade or street level."
The relevant language for usage of"second flooC'is "above grade within a
structure." Again the term "street level" is not used,
Exhibit D
Parabgals
Mmia E. Ruiz
Carla M. Ha$en
Panicia J . Craig
2.
J.
(970) 668-1678 + FAX (970) 668-5121 + E-mail carlson2@cohyado.rct + VaiIVaLb"t + (970) 845-7090
oo
H"'*i*ffiflF
o
In construing a statutory code, it is black letter law that strict construction must be
given to statutory language. You must first look at the "plain language of the statute." If
the language is clear, it must be interpreted as written.
The architectural design for unit E show that the level is a minimum four feet
above street level and approximately fifteen feet above grade. A walk by of the unit
confirms this. Unit E is neither at street level, nor at grade as is required for a
determination that this is a "first floor level." This requires a finding that this unit is
above both street level and grade and therefore a "second floor" unit.
This position is strengthened by the fact that Unit C must be considered a "first
floor level." In the Code, tltere is a difference between street level and grade. While Unit
C may be below street level, it is not below grade. It is in fact at grade. As this Unit is at
grade. it cannot be considered a "basement or garden level. Again, the definition of
basement or garden level is limited to "substantially below grade." The Unit must be
considered a "first floor" unit which is at grade.
Any other interpretation will be contrary to the Code and legally unsupportable.
It would also contrary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a
situation were retail space would be above street level and, therefore, unattractive to
potential users. The end result would be a perennially vacant unit.
I would appreciate it if you would coordinate a time with me to walk the unit in
order to provide the appropriate usage interpretation.
Sincerely,
(2-qo,s-=--=-
Paul R. Dunkelman
cc: Covered Bridge, Inc.
TOII?{OFI/AII
DEartment of Community Dnelopment
75 Sorth Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
97M79-2138
FAX 970479-2452
ututu.aailgou.com
December 1,2006
Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman
Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C.
P.O. Box 1829
Frisco, Colorado 80443
RE: Covered Bridge Building Street Level Determination
227 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado
DearMr. Dunkelman
The Town of Vail Communily Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated
November 20, 2006, regarding the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E,
respectively.
In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, the
Commwrity Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on
file with the Town of Vail:
o Titte 12,ZonngRegulations, Vail Town Codeo Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 C'CBBBPS"). Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block 58, Vail Village l" Filing
Upon review of the aforementioned documents, the Community Development
Department has determined that, for zoning purposes, Unit C is to be considered the
"basement or garden" level of the building. In conEast, Unit E shall be considered the
o'floor or street level" of the building. While it is mutually understood that Unit E is a
minimum of fow feet above the level of the street, the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have consistently held, when
interpreting the applicable sections of Title 12,ZoningRegulations, that such a change in
elevation shall not constitute an "above street level" condition. Any other interpretation is
n tBCrcr.ED PAPER
", J
contrary to the horizontal zoning intent ofthe Code and development goals and policies
of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street
level ofbuildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas.
Therefore, Sections 12-78-2 and 12-78-3 of the Vail Town Code shall apply to Units C
and E of the Covered Bridge Building, respectively.
As you are likely aware, Sectio n 12-3-3,of the Vail Town Code outlines a procedure for
, appealing an action of the Administrator. Should you wish to appeal the Community
Development Departrnent's determination regarding the specific levels of Condominium
Units C and E, a form for filing said appeal is on file at the Offices of the Community
Development Department,
Sincerelv.
lL ?a+*,
George Ruther, AICP
ChiefofPlanning
Town ofVail
flLt c0PY
Exhibit E
Departmmt of Cornmunity D nelnpment
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colnrada 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
utaut aailgoa.con
December 1,2006
Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman
Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C.
P.O. Box 1829
Frisco, Colorado 80443
RE: Covered Bridge Building Street Level Determination
227 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado
DearMr. Dunkelman,
The Town of Vail Community Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated
November 20,2006, regarding the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E,
respectively.
In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, the
Community Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on
file with the Town of Vail:
o Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Codee Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19194 ("CBBBPS")
r Town's tegal hle for Lots B, C and D, Block 58, Vail Village l't Fiting
Upon review of the aforementioned documents, the Community Development
Department has determined that, for zoning purposes, Unit C is to be considered the
"basernent or garden" level of the building. In contrast, Unit E shall be considered the
"floor or street level" of the building. While it is mutually understood that Unit E is a
minimum of four feet above the level of the street, the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have consistently held, when
interpreting the applicable sections of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, that such a change in
elevation shall not constitute an "above street level" condition. Any other interpretation is
n &cYctto umn
conhary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies
of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street
level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas.
Therefore, Sections 12-78-2 and 12-78-3 of the Vail Town Code shall apply to Units C
and E of the Covered Bridge Building, respectively.
As you are likely aware, Section 12-3-3, of the Vail Town Code outlines a procedure for
appealing an action of the Administrator. Should you wish to appeal the Community
Development Department's determination regarding the specific levels of Condominium
Units C and E, a form for filing said appeal is on file at the Offices of the Community
Development Department.
Sincerely,
A,*r- ?,,tt*n
George Ruther, AICP
Chief of Planning
Town of Vail
Rorra,A'V, Carlson
JudithJatws Cmlson
PaulR. Dwi<clrnnn
o
CarkonrCarlson I Dunkebnmr, L.
o
L.C.
Attorneys at l-aw
Dral<e l-anding+ 975 N. TenMile Dive + P.O. Box 1829
Frisco, Colorado 8044j
Exhibit F
Parabgak
Maria E. Ruiz
CorhM. Felice
Patticia J . CraigCtsislopl.rl D. Totnclunk
December 21,2006
Via Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mail
Town of Vail
Attn.: Waren Campbell
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building
227 Bridge Street
Vail, CO
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Enclosed please find the Appeals Form as well as the necessary attachments. The
Appeals Form has been sent by both facsimile and U.S. Mail.
Please advise as to when the matter will be brought before the Planning
Commission.
Sincerely,
q.qA.\s'=----
Paul R. Dunkelman
cc: Covered Bridge, Inc.
(970) 668-1678 + FAX (970) 668-5121 : E-mail: conbon2@colarala.ner + VailVallcy + (970) 845-7090
i=EIV
0:) 2006
OF VAIL
|iltrc0
1111 iAil
TOWN
niH$m
Appeals Form
De;rarLment of CoinmunRy : Da\Aeloptncnt
75 SouUr ftonFage Road., vail? Oilorado 81657
tdf : 970:479.2139 far: 970.4N9.2452
web: i,rwur.vailsov.coin.
Generat Infornraffon:
This form ls tequire4 for filing ar,r appeal of t Sbff; Deglgn Revie^/v Board, or Plannjng ancl Errvirgnmental
Commlssion action/dccision .q complete form and assoctat€d requircments nrusl be.submtted b the
Community Det/clopment Departnrent wifrin turenty (20)cahMur dayn ol the clisptrted actron/decision.
Action/Decision being appealed: Aooellant is aopealing the CommunitvDevel,opment
-Derparfinent deterlqlnation that for zoning purposes g 9g,y*"d Btidgg Boilditg, 2?J
Bridge Streel, Vql,, Colorado is to,bu om shee"t]g/9|" olthuluilging
Dateof Action/Decision:
Board or Saff person rendeiling ac,6m/dedsiol:George Ruthcr
Does thts appeat |nuolve a"spactfic partel of land?. @ (na)
If yes, arc you an adja'cent prop€rty'ownefr tVesg
llame of Appellant{s}r Covsed Bridge,Inc'
Mailing Address: Po' Box 1829,.Frisco, CO 80443
Phonb:(970) 668-r678
Physical Mdress l.n vall: 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, CO
Legal DescrlpHon of Appellan(i) proFerry In Vd;; Lot C and Lot D. an4 thc southwc$tedk! feet of Lot B.
Appdtant(s) Stgnaure(s)t .?< rLc:e--
rccordedplat thercof. Eaglc Countv. Colo.redo
(nttacn a list of signatures jf more space is.required).
Submittal Bequirementsll' 0n a sspardte sheet or separate'sheets of poper;, provide a ditailed explanation of how you orc an
"oggrieved or atlversely aflfected person",2' On a separat€ sheet or separate shccts o'f paper, specify the precise natur€ of me appeal, Flease
cite spec,ifrc code sections havinE retwance to the ididn being appealed,3. Provide a list of names and addresses (hoth rnailing dnd phy:;icaladdrcsscs jn Vail) ot ali owners uf
property who arc thc subject of the appeal and all gdJacent prope.rty owner$ (including o\dne6
whose propcrties arc sefaraterl from the subject propcrty by a right-of-wity, stream, ol other
intervening barrier).4. Provide.ghmped, addressed envelopes for each proper$ owner listed in (3.).
PLE ISE.SUBMXT rlll5 FORM aN D Atl,.sl IBM fffAL REQUIREM ENT5 rO:
TO\flN QF VAIL, OFPARTMCiTIT.OF @MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/
/5.ril)rJTH TRONTAGE R0A0, VAIL, COLOMDO 8155/.
F: \d cv\Fo [f4SI:ERt"llTS\Planning\App licatkrns\Appealr. doc
Erv=ln\
2i 2086
U
OF VAIL
n TelF
lnl =-
l;1 DEC
|lI
TOWN
DateRcceived:- ler-' I *_ ndviWMr
Planneir- -(, \ - flioiect No.
r 2.6-2005
ridzq:g 9002'lz'co00 'd 998i'0N 3r1 NV[{t])N|'|0 t N0sluvc N0sluvc
tl'-
Attachment I
Aggrteved or Adverscly Impacted Person
Appellant is the owner of 227 Covaed BridgeBuilding, Vail, Colorado, The
Community Planning Departne,lrt has determincd that for zoning purposes Unit E
Covered Bridge Buildin1,227 Brjdge Sfieet, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a "floor
or sheet level" of the building.
It is the Appellant's position that Unit E, Covered Bridge must be considered a
"second floor" unit. Appellant is adverrsely afrecrcd by the detcnnination ttnt Unit E is
considered a"floor or steet level" unit.
A "floor or sheet levef' mit has the most restioted uses. The pennitted uses of
"floor or street level" units are retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, lodges,
and type IV ernployee housing. Tire pennittcd use of a second floor unit includes the
permitted uses of the "floor or street lcvel", but also providcs for many additional uses,
including but not limited to lodges, ba* and financial institutions, business and offioc
scrviccs.
The Community Plarning Deparhncnt determination severely impacts propefiy
rights, its right to use of the property under the Town Code, the rentability and
marketability ofthc real property and rvill rcsult in vacancies.
The property is not in fact at sheet level. This has been ageed by the Plamring
De,parfinent. Pedestiarn are required to walk up a set of stairs to enter the Unit. Unit B
is a minimum of 4 feet above eueot levol- It is also approximaicly fiftcc'n ( I 5) fcot abovo
grailc. This makcs it clear that this Unit cannot be considered at street level, but also
makcs thc unit unattactive for thc tlpe of use rcquired on sheet level, i.e. retail use.
Appellant presently has a renter interested in renting Unit E for use not permitted
undar thc Planning Departnent ruling. This has limited the ability of the Appellant to
tully rent Unit E.
t'd g98t'0l'l cI |'|VI{I)Nflo n NOsluvc NOsluvc lldz9:g $002'lz'co(
Attf,chneut2
Nature of Appcal
The Commuuity Plaming Department has determinod that fsl2sning pruposes
tlratUnit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Steet" Vail, Colorado is to be
consid€red a "flool or steEt level" oftie buildhg. Appellant h the owner of ?27
Covured Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado.
It is important to consider the relevant dcfinitions of "basement or garden level,"
"first floor or sbeet levelr'and "second floor,"
l. A "basoment or garden level" is dcfined "as that floor of a building that is
e,ntirely or substantially below grade." Of note is that the t€rm "steet
level" is not part of the definition. lz-TBA,Vail Toqm Code.
2. A "first floor or steet level" is defined "as tlut floor ofthe building th+ is
located at gaile or street level." 12-7F.-3, Vail Town Code.
3. The relevant languagc for usage of"second floor" is "above grade withh a
strtchrre." Again the tenn "strreet lcvel" is not used. 12-78-4, Vail Tovrn
Codc.
It is not disputcd by the Plannirs Departncyrt that Unit E is a minimum of foru
feet above the level of the steet. It is also appmximaely fifteen (15) feet abovc gradc.
Unit E is noittrer at steet level, nor at grade as is required for a determination that tris is a
'frrst floor level." This requires a finding that this Unit is above both steet level aud
grade md thereforc a "second floorD rurit.
This position is stengthened by the fact that Unit C should be considercd a "first
floor level." The Planning Departnent has dctcrnined that Unit C is a "basemcnt or
garden level unit." This is not part of ths appeal duc to the lack of adverse impact which
is considered intlre appeal process, i.e. Attachment 2.
While Unit C is below street level, it is at grade. Inthe Code, there is a differoncc
between steet level and grade and in this instanoe only the term grade is considsed . As
tbis Unit is at grade, it cannot be consiilened a'basement or garden level. The definition
of baseinent or gaden level is limited to "substantially below grade." The Unit must be
consideted a"fust floor" unit which is at grade.
g 'd 998?'0N ct't NVflll)lNtl0 | |.losluvS Nos'luvc Ildz9:9 9002'lz'co0
It is clear from the language of the Vail Torvn Code that Unit E must bc
considsed a seoond floor unit ard Unit C must be oonsidered a first floor unit. It is welt
established law that in interpreting statutory language, you must first look to the plain
language ofthe statutc. See Inre the Maniage of Ciesluk 113 P.3d 135, l4l (Colo.
2005); see also Eeoole v. YascavaeE, 101 P.3d 1090, 1093 (Colo. 2004) Tho Planning
Deparhent bas decided to ignore the stict language of the Toum Code and determine
thet a Unit four feet abova strcst level and fiftccn fcct above grade is in fact at grade or
stcct level.
The determination by the Planning Departnent is contrary to the language of the
Town Code, is legally in error and is, in faot" an arbitrary and capricious decision. This
nrling is contary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a situation
were retail space would be above steet levcl and, thereforo, unattractive to potentid
users. The end rcsult would be a perennially vacant rmit
I 'd 998i'0N cr NV[l.l])N|i0 [ N0$luv] N0sluvc fld09:q g00z'lz'ceo
Attachment3
A{iacent Propsr'ty Omerr
Covered Bridgc Buildfu€ Association, hc.
PO. Box2636
Edwafds,CO 81632
Pepi Spo4Inc,
doJosof Orsnshammer
231 Bddge Steet
Vail, CO 81657
Slifor, Smith and Frampt'on, LLC
230 Bridge Stect
Vail" CO 81657
Darrid Lnther
s/o CraigDentm
1116 Deer Blvd.
Avon,CO 81620
I'd gg8?'0N c'll llVflll)N|'|0 [ N0sluvc N0sluvc lrid0$:9 9002 ' tz'c00
RottallWl.Crolsa.
ldhh,lanatullrrn
PoalR.Dlliiahrar'
C1r|pCcrlssn & Dunlcr,lmr,,n, L.L.O
llrrotneys at uw
Dtaltel.zudtlag+ 975 N,Ta'Mrhtutue + P.O. Box 1829
Frisco,CobrfuN443
Paalagqli
lvlari,a E. Rrdz
CaioM.Fe[cc
Par;liEial.*dgCluiroploD, Twnclulck
December21,2006
llia Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S' Mail
Town of Vail
Attn.: Warreir Campbell
Deparfircnt of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building
227 Bridge Stcct
Vail, CO
DearMr. Campbcll:
Enclosed please find Supplerrental Attaslunemt 3.
SincerelY,
€r----\
Paul R. Dunkclman
cs: Covered Bridgo, Inc.
(970) 668-1678 + FP'J{ 1.970) 668.5121 + E,rnail: crrhon}@calmadnna + VallVallary + /970) 845-709A
7, ' d 9981'0N cll NVtilli)Ntlo t NOs'luvc Nosluvc [,{dz0:9 9002 'lz'cs0
Supplemental Attrchmmt 3
Adjrcent hoperty Owners
Covered Brtdge Buildtng Assoelafion, Inc.
227 Bridge Sheet
Vail, CO 81657
P.O. Box 2636
Edwlrds, CO 81632
Pepl Sport,Inc.
c/o losef Oramshartmer
231 Bridge Sueet
Vail, CO 81557
Gastof Granshammer, Iuc.
do Pepi Gramshammer
23I E. Gore Creek Drive,
Vail, CO 81657
Mountaln Haus Condominium Associetion
Athr: Barbara Bariks
292 E. McadowDrive
Vail, CO E1657
SliferBuildlng, LLC
230 Bridge Steet
VaiI, CO 81657
Cherles Devid Luther
c/o Craig Denton
227 Bridgc Steet
Vail, CO 81657
1l l6 Deer Blvd.
Avon, CO 81620
Charlec Devid Luther
227 BridgF Steet
Vail" CO 81657
16 Paddock Road
Edna, MN 55436
0 'd 9g8t'0N cll l|vrill)Nn0 [ N0sluvc N0s']uvc fidZ0:9 g00Z'tZ'c0(
i
? & RParhersVeil, LLC
228 Bridge SkoeL Units A, C, D & E
Veil, CO 81657
Atb.: Michacl Stutghton
228 Bddgp Sheet
Vail, CO 81657
Chadec & Ellzrbsth l{och Real Ert tF T}uct
228Bridgc Shoct, thitsF & G
Vail, CO 81657
411 E. 37tb stN.
lVichitq KS 57201-2256
| 'd ggSt'0l{ cll llvllll)l{rl0 [ N0sluvc Nosluvc lldz8 :9 9002 ' ]e'c00
.a
RonaAlV.Cartrrnlr.
lludlthlarncs Cqilsort
PillR.D:lgllkhrE,'.
ccrJr,ccf#rffi,t.L.O
Drral<el,rrnddw+975 N.TmlvlibDrrioe+ P.O. Box 1829
tuisco, Collll'a/o 80443
Par.alqdt
I{ada E. Rrriz
CarhM. Pelitr
Paaicial-Cl.aeC*ldsnilwD,Tonclutk
Deccmbcr 21,2006
Via Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mail
Town of Vail
Atfrr.: Wanen Campbell
Dcpamrent of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building
227 Bridgc Steet
Vail, CO
DoarMr. Campbell:
Enclosed please find the Appeals Form as well as tlte nccessary anachments. The
Appeals Form has been sent by both facsimile and U.S. Mail.
Please advise is to when the matta will be bmught bcfore tlre Planning
Commission.
Sincercly,q{aF--"
Paul R. Dunkeknan
Covered Bridge, Inc.
(970) 668-rc7e + Flo(.(970) 668-5121 + Eqnail car/r;on2@qlondo.rrlr+VaIVakl + 07|l 845.7090
cc:
-e o-g-u v e
DEC 2i2U0
rowN oFslt
n
\D)l(
r\l\l
7,'d 998t'0N cr NV|llIt)Nrl0 I N0SIUVC N0SIUVC |tldz9:9 900e'lz'c00
J-'
$r
fxtriuit c Oate5 i.pclicati<;n li4ay 20, I982
APPLICATION FORM FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
oR MODtFICATtONs lN COMI\4ERCIAL CORE | (CCl)
l. This procedure is required for alteration of an existing building which adds
or removes any enclosed floor area or outdoor patio or replacement of an
existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environment
Commission.
The application will not be accepted until all informatiorr is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT John Dobson
ADDRESS 227 Bridqe Street Vail. Colorado 81657 PHONE476-541 6
B. NAME OF APPLICANTTS REPRESENTATIVE Ruoff/Wentworth Architects AIA
ADDRESS 500 Lionshead Mall, Vail, Colorado 8le 57 PHONE476-305'l
C. AUTHORIZATION OF
SIGNATURE John
ADDRESS olorado 816 PHONE 476-5416
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 227 BrtLdqe Street Vail, Col
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
E. FEE: Check for $101.20 enclosed.
F. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY: See attached survey by Interrnountain Engineering'
G. LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND ADDRE9SES: SEC AttAChEd
I ist of six names.
ll. SITE PLAN: See attached drawings.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
It is proposed to fill the depressed entry at the North half of the building
front so that an easier access may be provided. The entry doors to the
various shops will be reorganized for easier identification.
e 1V4F. )-cr.,l^rt^ +v a/\u-b +ile-2.
ua;i parr\
t<al'wr,tlC
1rto^"\
tf,"#.-1'^'4l-r-
IIV. URBAN DESIGN COI{SIDERATION:
A. Ped est r ia n iza t ion
V. ZONING:
Zone - Commerical Core I
rf;liffiffiSf,[PPBpeeqP:1
B.
The modifications proposed will widen Bridge Street in front of thebuilding thereby creating a more inviting entrance to the Village fromthe Cov.ered Bridge.
Vehicle Penetration
Vehicles are not allowed on this end of Bridge street. But the added /width that will be created will ease access for T.o,V. maintenance andemergency vehicles.
C. Streetscape Framework
The basic front and building tines which are so famitiar to our guests would fbe maintained. Tlre new work will maintain the same general chiracter asexists now .
Street Enclosure
The eave heiglrt of the building will remain unchanged. Therefore, the ,/street enclosure will not be chanqed.
Street Edge
Variations in the building facade maintain visual interest in accordance "/with street edge requirements.
F. Building Height
Building height will not be changed. y'
Views
Views on the north end of Bridge street will be improved. The work /will not a ffect views in any other directions.
Sun Shade Considersations
Shading patterns will be unaffected. ,,/
D,
E.
G.
H.
,a:,l
'aa
' l8.2rl.04o B Uses - Second Floor Existing: Retail Stores
18.24.090 Lot Area E site Dimensions 4,329 square feet
18.24. 100 Setbacks
18. 2rr. 120 Height
18. Zrl. 150 Site Coverage
18.24. 170 Landscaping E Site Development Unchanged
--
No Requirements
Allowed: 38'Existing: 37'At Bridge Street. Z9r6u
808 Allowed: 3,463.2 sq.ft.Existing: 3,355.9 sq. ft.Proposed: 3,339,4 sq. ft.
Unchanged from existing.t 8. 2ll. 180 parking E .Loading
)/, '/h-
.n< /,l./,)fil ar-* q
AA /ttr_!l -nTTfr'rT L_rlo vvvuvv.N\I -r4#-.{-E ni ---fi*-\_.e lll r
3 ffilii g
iflg! lir e !ffi 'ffi{i{
r- r+ ' --lt-
,:---.--.-_,Q ?
lsg*l l= e
iN5-=i I lP E
l,'*-qol tlE "r
li i sl ill$ - ffil
'---.f_r
COVERED BRjDGE BUILDING
227 ]RIDGT STREET
VAIL. COLORADOrGr@mw
Exhibit H
TO: '
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Exhibit l
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 14, 1994
A reqrlest for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of
the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge StreeVLots C and D and a
part of Lot B, Block 5-B, VailVillage 1st Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Hillis of Snowmass, Inc, and East West Partners
Mike Mollica
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located
at 227 Bridge Street. The project would be considered a "demo/rebuild" which would involve
the demolilion and removal of the existing structure and the construction of the proposed
building on this site. The proposal calls for major design modifications to the front entrance
(east elevation) of the existing commercial spaces, the creation oflowgllewt-comlnelglAt
spaces which would be accessible from stairs diqgg!]y,_on Brrdge_9tfeet,- the infill of the
-nOnhWesf section ol tlTd broperty, the'dOOiilon of an elevator at the west end ol the building,
and the addition of two upper level floors to accommodate one condominium. The exterior
materials proposed for the structure would be predominantly stucco and wood, with a wood
shake shingle roof. A snowmelt system would be installed in all pedestrian areas on the
property and the snowmelt system would also exlend to the two exterior stairs (sandstone) on
Bridge Street. These areas would be finished with concrete unit pavers, in the approved
Streetscape design.
As a result of the two previous PEC worksessions, the applicant has shifted the entire
structure back lo within 6" of the western property line, and has further shilted the fourth and
fifth floors lo the wesl approximately 4'. The Bridge Street (east) elevation of the structure is
now proposed to be located approximately 7 feet back from its currenl location. The fifth floor
has been modilied to provide an east-facing "double dormer", which further conceals the flat
roof portion of the structure.
As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants have also proposed to upgrade and improve
the Town's adjacent pocket park to the norlh. The original design for the pocket park was
completed by Winston and Associates and has been recently modified by the staff and Todd
Oppenheimer, the Town's landscape architect. Final Design Review Board approval of the
pocket park design shall be necessary.
Atso included in the redevelopment, the enlire structure would be brought into compliance with
all of the current building and lire codes, (the building would be fully sprinkled).
Due to this project's location within the Commercial Core I zone districi, approval by the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of a malor CCI exterior alteration is
required. The staff has reviewed the applicant's submittal, and agrees that the proposal as
redesigned would comply with all ol the Town's development standards for the Commercial
Core I zone district. No variances or view corridor amendments are required for this
redevelopment.
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
. On August 27,1990, the PEC approved a major CCI exterior alteration for the
redevelopment ol the Covered Bridge Building.
. On August 29, 1990, the Town's Design Review Board (DRB) granted final design
approval for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. Although there is no
time limit or expiration for the previously approved major exterior alteration, the final
DRB approval for the redevelopment has expired.
. On February 14, 1994, the PEC held a joint worksession with the DRB to review the
major CCI exterior alteration proposal.
, On February 28, 1994, the PEC held a second worksession to review the major CCI
exterior alteration proposal.
. On March 2, 1994, the DRB held a conceptual review of the project.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following is a summary of the development standards for the proposed redevelopment of
the Covered Bridge Buibing:
' COMMERCIAL
CORE I
ZONING
Sile Atea: N/A 4,675 sq. fl. 4,575 sq. ft.
BuildablE Area: 4,518 sq. lt. 4,518 sq. ft.
Selback: Per the Vail Village Urban N: O N: 1'
Desisn Guide ptan
I ):. :; ?;
W: 0' W: 0'4'
Heighl: 60%: 33' or less 43' to ridge 60.5%: 33 tl. or les3
4o%: 3:| fi' ' 43 tt. 39.5%: 33 ft. - 43 tt.
Cornrnon Area: 1,265 sq- ft., 762 sq. ft. 1,265 iq. ft., or 35%
. or 35% of allowable GRFA
GRFA: 3,614 sq. tt. or 80% 0 sq. tt. 3,614 sq. ft., or 80%
Unil8: 25 unils per acre, 0 unils 1 unil
2 units lor this property
Site Coverage: 3,740 sq. tt., or 8fA 3,650 sq. lL, orTSolo 9,726 sq, n., s 79.7"h
Landscaping: Per lhe Vail Village Urban Sanp Sarne
Design Guide Plan
Parking: - Per lh€ Town of Veil Raquired:22.1 spaces Required: 28.1 spaces
Parking Standards
Loading: Per the Town of Vail Requirgd: 1 Bequired: 1
Loading Standards Exisling: 0 xisling: 0
Commercial Uses: N/A 8,867 sq. tt. 7,671 sq. tl.
Gross Floor Area: N/A 9,529 sC. tl. 12,550 sq. fl.
EXISTING
PBOJECT
PROPOSED
PHOJECT
tv.
The nine criteria for Gommercial Core I exterior allerations shall be used to judge the merits ol
this project. In addition, the PEC shall also utilize the VailVillage Master Plan, the Vail Village
Urlran Design Guide Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the purpose section of the
Commercial Core I zone district.
As stated in Section 18.24.010 of the Town's Municipal Code, the purpose section of the
Commercial Core I zone district is as follows:
"The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the
unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges
and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and
uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design
guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that
are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural
qualities that distinguish the village."
The Planning Staff finds that the Covered Bridge Building application for a major exterior
alteration rneets the Commercial Core I purpose, as stated above.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Although not specifically categorized as a sub-area, the Covered Bridge Building is specifically
identified in the Vail Village Master Plan as follows:
"Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will
be change in the core areas built environment. This is mostly due to the
number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. The
most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyrano's
Building, the Lodge at Vail and the covered Bridge Building. lf each of these
and other properties developed to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a
significant increase in the level of development in the Village core."
There are many goals, objectives, and policies which are identified in the Vail Village Master
Plan that are applicable to the development of the Covered Bridge Building. The staff feels
that the following specifically address this project:
Goal #l: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residentialand
commercial f acilities.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public
improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with
the Town.
1.3.1 Policv:
Public improvemenls shall be developed with the participation of the
private sector working with the Town.
Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic
ealth and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
:" 2.4 Obiective:.'r Encourage the development of a variety ol new commercial activity
where compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.1 Policv:
Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal
zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvemenls
to the pedestrian network throughout the Village.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation, and maintenance of
existing lodging and commercial facilities to better set've the needs ol
our guests.
Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughoul the Village.
3.1 Obiective:
' Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and
other improvements.
3.1.1 Policv:
Privale'development projects shall incorporate streetscape
improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighling and
seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways.
3-4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible
green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
3,4.1 Policv:
Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not
further restrict public access.
Goal #4: To preserue existing open space areas and expand greenspace
opportunities,
4.1 Obiective:
lmprove existing open space areas and create new plazas with
greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each
type ot open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village'
4.1.2 Policv:
. The development of new public plazas, and improvemenls to existing
plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, elc.), shall be
strongly encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places.
The staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building would
further the above Vail Village Master Plan goals and objectives.
VI. COMPL]ANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN
The Streetscape Master Plan concepts identified for the Covered Bridge area include the
following:
"stairs connecting Bridge Street to the pocket park and Gore Creek on the
north side of the Covered Bridge Building are needed. The pocket park should
be improved so that it could function as a picnic area or performance site in the
Village."
The Streetscape Master Plan addresses paving treatments in the Village as follows:
"The demarcation between the public right-of-way and private land may be
appropriate to dissolve or emphasize, depending on the individual project site-
The result will be to create a varied street color and texture that allows private
property owners creativity, but also establishes a comprehensive design context
to work within. The primary paving material for the right-of-way area of the
Village core is recommended to be the rectangular concrete unit pavers. The
herring bone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double
soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape
.lreatment without being monotonous. The double soldier course also creates a
point for starting and stopping pavers proposed by private developers that will
be compatible with the overall phased paving design."
Although the specific details of the proposed streetscape and pocket park design are
described in Section Vlll ol this memorandum, overall, the staff believes the proposed
improvements make a positive contribution to the quality ol the area and are in compliance
with the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan.
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concepts identified for the Covered tsridge area
include a pocket park to the north of the site (with benches and planters). A "feature area"
with specialty pavers is also identified for a small area immediately southwest of the Covered
Bridge.
The statf believes that the applicant's proposed modifications to the Town's pocket park,
including the viewing plalform adjacent to the Covered Bridge and a new entry stair into the
park, are in conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concept and are a
positive public improvement.
VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The following are the nine Commercial Core I exlerior alteration design criteria, as listed in the
Urban Design Guide Plan, to be utilized by the Planning & Environmental Commission when
evaluating CCI exterior alteration proposals:
A. Pedestrianization
Staff believes that the proposed redesign for the Covered Bridge Building will improve
the pedestrianization in the lower Bridge Street area. This section of Bridge Streel is
basically a car-free pedestrian area; however, due to the large numbers of pedestrians
utilizing this area at peak times, it is not unusual for the street to become congested.
The modifications proposed for the Covered Bridge Building, as well as the
modifications proposed for the adjacent Covered Bridge pocket park, would improve
pedestrian circulation and would also provide additional public seating areas.
The project architect has designed the building so that it would meet all the current
ADA requirements lor disabled access. A "lift" would be located at the southeast
corner of the property, adjacent to the south side of the main enlry stair to the second
floor retail level. The lifl would be located behind a raised planter, which will assist in
screening the lift from Bridge Street. The lift would provide disabled access to the
lowest level ol the structure, as well as to the pocket park. From the lowest level, it is
possible to access lhe main elevator at the rear of the building. All levels ol the
building, with the exception of the fifth floor, would be accessible from this elevator.
Staff has suggested that the design of the "lift" be modified to better reflect the alpine
character of the Village, and the applicant has agreed to modify the design, subject to
final Design Review Board approval.
At the request of the DRB, the applicant has redesigned the southeast corner of the
site to eliminate the exposed lower level commercial space, from the main stair, soulh
to the Gasthof Gramshammer. This area has been filled so that the Bridge Street
elevation would extend up to the face of the building, thereby enhancing the pedestrian
experience. This area would be finished with conirete unit pavers (with integral
snowmelt), in the approved Streetscape design. A raised stone planter would be
added in lront (east) of the lift, and a bench would be added to lhe area.
I
Statf believes the proposed new pedeslrian access into the Covered Bridge pocket
park, as well as the proposed salety railings, will be a major improvement over the
existing conditions.
B. Vehicular Penetration
As recommended in the Urban Design Guide Plan, and in conjunction with the
pedestrianization objectives listed above, the major emphasis regarding vehicular
penetration in the Village is focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the
Village.
Loading and delivery lor the Covered Bridge Building is currently, and will in the future,
be handled in the same manner as any other building within the Village core. All
loading/delivery vehicles are required to park in designated loading/delivery zones.
Hand carts are then necessary to transport the goods to the individual businesses.
One particular concern that staff, and the PEC, has idenfified has to do with kash pick-
up tor the Covered Bridge Building. Because the only legal access for this site is via
Bridge Street, statf is concerned that trash pick-up would occur on Bridge Street' Staff
believes that this would be very undesirable, given that lower Bridge Street is
considered a "no-vehicle" area. As discussed in more detail under lhe Service and
Delivery section ol this memorandum, the staff would strongly recommend lhat the
owner of the Covered Bridge Building discuss with the adjacent properly owner, Pepi
Gramshammer, the possibility of allowing for service access through his site.
C. Streetscape Framework
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan recommends that it would be desirable to
have a variety of 'open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped which create
a strong framework for pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and activity.'
Further, the direction of the Guide Plan is not to enclose all Village streets with
buildings, nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in an open and somewhat
undelined condition.
Staff believes that the applicant's redesign for the Covered Bridge Building creates a
positive streetscape framework for the lower Bridge Street area. Along with an
enhanced pedestrian experience in this area, the redevelopment would also create
new commercial activity generators (i,e. additional street life and visual interest) with
the addition of the "visible" lower level commercial spaces. In order to provide a visual
connection between the lower level retail commercial shops and Bridge Street, the
applicant has shilted the east elevation of the structure approximately 7 feet back {rom
iis curuent location. This not only provides for a visual connection but it also allows for
landscaping to be located in front of the building. The staff believes that the exposed
lower level commercial spaces, at the northeast corner of the structure and along the
pocket park, work well given lhe lower grades in the pocket park area. We support the
DRB's request to infill the southeast corner ol the site to eliminate the exposed lower
level commercial space, (from the main stair, south to the Gasthof Gramshammer).
Statf does not believe that split-level commercial provides a comfortable enclosure lor
the street, and also does not provide the character and 'Village feel" that the Design
Guidelines recommend. Staff agrees with the DRB, that the infill of this area will
enhance the pedestrian experience along lower Bridge Street
Wth regard to the architectlral considerations, lhe staff has reviewed the project with
the Town's design consultant Jeff Winston (Winston and Associates). The initial
design concerns identified were that the majority ol the structure's mass and bulk
should be concentrated on the western half of the property. Addilionally, staff fell that
the building should step down as it approaches the eastern portion of the property
(Bridge Street). Further, staff felt that the overall roof design should be simplified and
that the proposed fifth floor should be architecturally integrated into the rest of the
structure. Staff had also expressed concern regarding the relationship of the proposed
fourth and fifth floors to the existing Gasthof Gramshammer lodge rooms (and exterior
decks) to the south.
Since the two PEC worksessions, the applicant has modified the building's design to
reduce the length ol the solid wall, which would have extended out (east)
approximately 8', from the edge of the Gramshammer fourth lloor deck. At the request
of the PEC, the applicant shitted the entire structure 5' to the west, to within 6' of the
western-most property line. Additionally, the Covered Bridge Building's fourth and filth
floors have been pulled back, to the west, approximately 4', so that any potential
negative impacts to the Gasthof Gramshammer would be lessened, or eliminated, and
so that the relationship of the Covered Bridge Building, to Bridge Streel, would also be
improved.
:D. Street Enclosure
In order to provide a more comfortable street enclosure in the lower Bridge Street area,
the PEC recommended (at the initial worksession) that the applicant consider shifting
the building lo the west. The applicant has complied with this request and has shifted
the building approximately 5 feet to the west, up to within 6 inches of the western-most
property line. This modification, coupled with stepped-back fourth and fifth floors,
provides an external street enclosure which adds visual interest, and according to staff,
provides a very comfortable pedestrian scale, which is the desired condition in the
Village.
Due to the Covered Bridge Building shifting to the west, the staif would recommend
that the exposed northeast elevation of the Gaslhol Gramshammer, adjacent to Bridge
Slreet, be linished with:stucco and painted to match the Gasthof Gramshammer. lt is
also recommended by:stafl that Mr. Gramshammer consider adding a retail window in
' this wall area.
E. Street Edge
As previously mentioned, as a part of this redevelopment, the applicants have
proposed to upgrade and improve the Town's adjacent pocket park to the north, as
well as the building's frontage on Bridge Street. A total ol three, raised, stone-faced
planters would be located along Bridge Street. ln addition, tvvo new planlers would be
9
added at the lower retail level elevation, (please see the landscape plan). Plant
material proposed for the planters would include 3 Aspen, 4 Juniper, 7 Chokeberry' 3
Alpine Current, 10 Kinnickinnick and assorted mixed-perennials. To further the Vail
Village Urban Design Considerations, the staff would recommend that the applicant
consider the addition of flower boxes to the balconies on the building.
The design for the pocket park calls for the creation ol a viewing platform/seating area
adjacent to the Covered Bridge. The Streetscape Master Plan recommended benches,
lighting and paver design would be utilized. A new entry stair into the park would be
constructed at the southeast corner of the park, which would provide pedestrian access
to the park and to the lower level commercial spaces in the building. The entire park
area would be re-seeded and irrigated as a part ol the proposal'
In order to accommodale the redevelopment, the applicants have proposed to remove
the two existing evergreen trees which are located adjacent to the north elevation of
the building. These trees are very close to the building and have grown "one-sided".
The Town's Landscape Architect, Todd Oppenheimer, believes the two trees could not
be relocated successfully. No other vegetation is proposed to be removed with the
c0nstruction.
The Town will be responsible for maintenance of the planters located up at the Bridge
Street level, as well as maintenance of the planter and landscaping in the pocket park'
The developer of the Covered Bridge Building will be responsible for maintenance of
the lower level planter in front of the building.
F. Building Height
The Vail Village Master Plan has identified this property as having an acceptable
building height in the range of three to four slories. A story is defined as 9 leet of
height and no rool is included.
This property is unique in that there is an 8-foot difference in elevation between Bridge
Street and the pocket park area north of the property. During the review of the 1990
redevelopment proposal, the applicant had requested that stalf analyze and interpret
where building height base elevations would be calculated trom. ln 1990, the staff
made the following building height interpretations, and these interpretations were
subsequently upheld by the PEC:
1. That the Covered Bridge Building site be divided.equally, beginning at
the northeast corner of the property with a line running diagonal to the
southwest corner of the propeny. The staff and the PEC believe that
this analysis provided for a fair and equitable review of building height
because it allows for the Bridge Street elevation of the struciure to be
based upon the grades on Bridge Street. lt also allowed for the
elevations of the building which lront north to the pocket park, and west
to Pepi's parking lot, to be based upon existing grades in the park area.
10
2. That the base elevation of Bridge Street (8,161 feet) willbe used to
determine heights for areas of the building which fall into the
southeastern 50% of the divided property.
3. That the base elevation at the northwest corner of the Covered Bridge
property (8,153 feet)will be used to determine building heights for the
northwest 50% of the structure.
During the PEG's 1990 review of the Covered Bridge Building redevelopment, the
drawings were submitted, and were certified, showing that the proposed design could
be built within the parameters of the height interpretation, and that the building would
not encroach into any Town adopted view corridor. ll was in late 1993 that the staff
learned that the 1990 approved drawings were not accurate and that the structure
could not be constructed without a height variance and a view corridor encroachment.
Although the stafl continues to believe that the above interpretation was an equitable
solution to a difficult problem, (given the unique topography surrounding this structure),
the staff has acknowledged that this interpretation has driven a design solution for the
site which does not appear to be compatible with the design standards for the Village.
From a design perspective, and from a practical point of view, staff believes that a
majority of this building's upper level mass should be located towards the rear.or
western po(ion of the site. However, the 1990 building height interpretation listed
above forces a design solution with a majority of the building mass cenlered on the
property. This is necessary in order to meet the 6040 roof area percentages.
During the February 14, 1993 PEC worksession, the PEC again revlewed this
issug, and subsequently determined that the building height base elevation for
the Covered Bridge property could now be calculated solely from the Bridge
Street elevation (8,161 feet). This PEC decision was based on the understanding
that the applicant would redesign the structure so that the entire building would be
shifted back approximately 5' to the wesl, and additionally, that the 4th and 5th floors
would further step back to the west.
G. Views and Focal Points
View Corridor #1 is the view corridor lrom the steps of the Vail Village Transportation
Center extending over the Village towards Vail Mountain. This view corridor was
intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and key architectural features
such as ths Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower.
As proposed, the highest point of the Covered Bridge Buildingls redesign would not
encroach into any of the Town's adopted view conidors. In order to avoid a view
corridor encroachment, a portion of the fifth floor is designed with a flat roof. Although
this has been a very difficult design problem, the staff believes that the redesign of the
fifth floor roof form, and the addition ol a "double dormer" adequately conceals the flat
roof from most pedestrian areas adjacent to the building. Because the project architect
has recently redesigned the roof form, at the request of the staff and PEC, the staff is
comforlable delaying the view corridor certification until Building Permit.
11
o
tx.
H. Service and Delivery
Per the Town Code, an additional loading space is noi required for the redevelopmenl.
No loading area exists for this site. The proposal includes a trash room to be located
at the rear, or west, side of the building, Trash pickup is proposed via Bridge Street'
as this property has no legal access through the rear, or Children's Fountain area.
Again, it is strongly recommended that the applicant discuss with Pepi Gramshammer,
owner of the property to the west, the possibility of allowing for service access through
his site. Pepi Gramshammer has recently submitted plans to develop his property
(currently a surface parking lot), by adding an enclosed parking garage with
approximately I lodging rooms and two condominiums above the garage.
l. Sun/Shade
The applicant has provided a sun/shade analysis for the winter solstice (Decembei
21st), and for the spring and fall equinox (March 21st and September 21st). The
analysig was conducted for the existing building and the proposed structure, and
revealed shading patterns for 10:00 AM, 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM.
The proposed structure will cast increased shade patterns on the adjacent pocket park
site to the nonh and northwest. The stalf believes that this additional shade will have
minimal impacts due to the fact that the area of the additional shading iS mainly to the
northwest ol the building, and this area is heavily landscaped with large, mature
evergreen trees.
There will be some additional "late day' shade (2:00PM) cast on approximately 4
square feet of Bridge Street, in the area of the proposed new stairs to the pocket park'
STAFF HECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a major CCI exterior
alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The staff
finds that this redevelopment proposal, over the course of two PEC work sessions, has
developed into one which is in compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for
Vail Village as well as the other Comprehensive Plan elements described in detail
above. Statf believes that the project will have a very positive effect on lower Bridge
Street and the entry to Vail Village. The staff's recommendation of approval includes
the following conditions:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the
redevelopment project, the applicant shall verify that the proposed rool
design does not encroach into View Corridor No, 1. This work shall be
completed by a registered surveyor in the State of Colorado.
2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy (TCO) for the redevelopment project, the applicant shall post
a bond, cash escrow, or letter of credit, in an amount necessary to
insure the complelion ol any outstanding improvements, not completed
12
o
at the time of the requested TCO. Said guarantee lor completion of any
outstanding improvements shall be in accordance with Section
17.16,250 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate ot
Occupancy (TCO) for the redevelopment project, the applicant shall
grant a pedestrian and landscape maintenance easement to the Town
for the purposes of pedestrian access to the pocket park and
maintenance ol the planters and pocket park landscaping.
4. That the applicant add 'divided lights" to the retail doors on ths first and
second levels of the structure, subject to DRB approval.
5. That the applicant add llower boxes lo the balconies on the building,
Subject to DRB approval.
:jl 6. That the exposed northeast elevation of the Gasthof Gramshammer,
adjacent to Bridge Street, be finished with stucco and painted to match,
It is recommended by staff that a retail window be cut into this wall.
c:tsrclncmc\bridge.3l,l
13
PLANT SCHEDULE
( .).F*Fi& r!'-
(ll ri'Fdd hndF
O **d.rr..-a !bd.s
o **.-- h6.d,
O B.r|- ^rfu.dEn3ffio'oF|..g'
!-" liJ r(f .-*,*--*-n.t *--.|*
/z-'L]r'U '*""'.-NOTEi
(,
z.6J
l(D
LJ()o
E
II]
otdE
trJ
o(J
F
LrJ
go
6B
uJq
8gt-;(D-
F.
c.l
N
5(L
ao
5
PROPOSED COVEREDBRIDGE BUILDING
1
a.
${.r
,ra"-r'.a.e
'\
\
\
@
Eutr
* *s64rt!a.rra,
BRIDCE STITEET
,.'|1^.. ,r.i !....frj L'!
COVERED BRIDGE
M @fuUil
ili
I
zAl
3l(til
I
.!l
3l
I
oo
.9l'"
*lt
\
\
\
E.O'
FEF. t rloscrPE PtA{
FOR u rERW.5 & OU NthES
I
a
os
El
o
H
F\
ttl
R
coNsrnucltoN .nerD ornc€
I
J\*t:..
cowieo]B]RT-I) G]g SA-.R EET
DECX O 8t'-8- 1.,'2"
IL
DECK O 91.-7"I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o 820
I
I
I
I
azoo'l.e'
I
I
\
\
oEct( o 9'r'-7" |
|I\ll
oEcK o 8r'- 8-1t2.
PAWnS orElrED)
r- l\LorB l,*r*"- , I
,lJ- ful-Tqfr
e$6T
$$:1o
s$
+-l\o
$_ET
dT
4;
it
J-l
$r
g=
L$l
-J-'*s56
:.\j'1
-0
t$-'
$$
'r' )
Il
I
-s
ig
$l
olttuET
1+t5FIttq0
I
+lalsl
FI
--lI*l
EI
5lr-l
I
\tl \-t
tl
l+
i1l
,.o
=s
1
\
I
-JN
\--
'$
t\]I
\l-l'lal$l
5l
fl
flb',a
g
,r !L
6^6-
\t $l
-rffiiJ-
\-/
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECTYOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town
Code, on February 12,2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in
consideration of:
A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to
shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and
4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001)Applicant Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg AmsdenPlanner: Wanen Campbell
A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town
Code, pursuant to Chapter '12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence
within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block
2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002)Applicant Nancy Hassett, represented by MiramontiArchitect PCPlanner: BillGibson
A request tor a tinat review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section ' lr/
12-3-38, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination ;g/ul4\., made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, r;Jl''
-L povgrgd Bridge Building shall be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, tV 7T located at227 Bridge StreeUlot C and D, and the southwesterly fourfeet of Lot B, Block /' 5-8, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appellant Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman,
LLCPlanner: George Ruther
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Pfease call 970-479-2138 for additional information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please
call970479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Pubf ished January 26,2007, in the Vait Daity.
Page 1
''
,q
td
o
lr
L
.-.\**
.l
.af---frry@s-
Covered Bridee Building Notes
purpose of the presentat."
,*d fot t* Co..r...c.,, l
r The Community lopment De ent will present evidence and testimony
that will enablf the Planning €onnnission to clearly find that
based uponf series of facts, that for zoning pu{poses, Condominium Unit E,
within the povered Bridge Building is the first floor or street level of the building.
Most , we will demonstrate that through a series of actions and
interpreted,,the Town's Horizontal 7-oning Ordinance since its inception in 1975
the regulation in any other manner is contrary to the horizontal
a
a
a
zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies of the Town.
Reference staffmemorandum, dated February 12 ,2007.
Section IV - Summarize eachbullet point and present exhibits
Exhibit G - In accordance with Town's Zoning Regulations, as far back as May
20, 1982, the basemenVgarden and first floor/street levels of the Covered Bridge
Building have been commercial retail uses, as required by Zoning. With these
facts in mind, it could likely be argued that any opportunity to appeal an
adminishative or PEC action expired in 1982. However, staff doesn't even
believe that debate is even warranted given the other facts ofthis appeal..
Exhibit H - Sheet A2.2 of the approved building permit set of plans indicates that
a difference of 3.8' feet exists between Bridge Street the "retail landing" and
"lower retail C" (Condominium Unit E). Given the topographic conditions of a
mountain resort community, and the fact, that since its original construction the
Covered Bridge Building has always had a grade change and a set of stairs
leading to the front entrance ofthe retail spaces.
Exhibit I - The Staff memorandum to the Plaruring & Environmental Commission
ret-€nty states that the major exterior alteration proposal was in compliance with
the applicable Zoning Regulations, e
Further, the staffand PEC conclude in the
report, that for the purposes of zoning, "the Bridge Street elevqtion of the
structure is based upon the grades ofBridge Street."
Exhibit J - Covered Bridge Building Building Permit Set, dated April 19, 1994.
Exhibit K - TC, PEC & DRB approved plan sets, March 14, 15, & 16, 1994
Further affirms the proposal's compliance with the ZontngRegulations
Exhibit L - PEC & DRB approved plan sets, August 28, 1982 Again, affirms
compliance with Zoning Regulations and further affirms that the mere presence of
stairs and a grade change does not preempt the Town's Horizontal Zoning
Ordinance of 1975.*r-
a
a
CilS - Sunclay, February t!,2OO7
PLANNING AND ENVIRONHENTAL
coltt|rssroN
PUBUC f,EETING
February 12, 2m7
i:oopm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAIiBEFS / PUBLIC
WELCOME
]IIEMBERS PRESENT
IIEMBERS ABSEl'IT
osmv|s]rti
60 minutes't.A request for a worksession to discuss
text amendments lo Tille 12, Zoninq Reou-
lalions, Vail Tovvn Code, to add com;merdial
linkage requirements and inclustonary zon-
ing requiremenls lo lhe Zoning Regulalions
lor the purpose ol mitigating employee
housing impacts resulting from davalop-
ment in the Town of Vail, and setlino lorlh
details in regard thereto- (PEC06{0d4) 'Applicer :Town ol Vail
Plannont{ha Timm
ACTIO]I:
MOTION: SEGOND:VOTE:
l0 mlnules
2.4 rsqugst tor a linal review of an amend-
od final plal, pursuant to Chapler 12-'12,
Exemption Flat Flevl6w Procedures. Vail
Town Code, 1o allow lor a modification to
shared property boundaries, Lots 11 anq
12, Bighorn Subdivision, tocat6d at 4852
and 4856 Meadow Lane, and s€ltino forth
details in regard thereto. |PECOT-000-1)
Applicant:Meadowlark Development Part-
ners, LLC, represented bv Cr6q Amsden
Planner:Wanen Campbeil
ACTION:
MOTION: SECONoT VOTE:
3.A requ€sl for a linal review ot an appeal
of an administrative action, oursuddl to
Section 12-3-38, Appeal of Administrativg
Actions, Vail Town Cod€, aDp€alino a de-
termination made by the Zoniirq Ad-minis-
trator that for zonirio purDoses-Condomini-
um Unit E, Cowr€d Bhdge Bu qim sha b€
considered the 'first lloor or stroet level' oflhe building, locatod at 227 Btidg.
Sir€eulot C and D, end ths soulhwesteity
tour leet ol Lot B, Block 5-8, Vail Village
First Filing, and setting lorth details io re-
gard lherelo,
Appellant:Covered Bridg€, lnc., represent-
ed by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman, LLC
Planner:George Ruther
MOTION:SECOND: VOTE:
4.4 requsst lor a final review of a major
exterior alleration. oursuant to Section
12-7H-7, Majot Exleiior Allerations or
Modilications, Vail Town Code, to allow lor
addilions to, and lhe renovation ol. lhe
Landmark Condominiums: and a reouesl lor
a final review of variances from Sections
1 2-7H-1O, Setbacks, 12:7H-1 4, Site
Coverage. and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and
Site Dev€lopment, Vail Town Code, pur
suant to Chapter 12-17, Variances. to allow
tor an underground parking structure and aslaircase with.in the setbacks, and
deviatlons from the maximum site coveraoe
and minimum landscape area requiremenls,loc$d st 61 O WbBt Linshoad Circla/Lol I ,
Block I, V l Lionc*nrd Filing 3, and sotino
iorfi dda 6 ln Goard tfE|$.(PEC,6-OO74} -
Applicanl:Landmark Condominium
Association. Inc., represenled by Geott
Wright
PlanneriBill Gibson
ACTION:Tabled to February 26. 2007
MOTIO : SECOND: VOTE: -
5.A request lor a tinal review of a varianc€,
from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town
Code,pursuant to Ch apter 12-17,
Variances, to allow for a new sinole lamilv
resllence within the f.ont a n d -s id;l
setbacl(s, Iocat€d at 1895 West Gore Creek
Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Villaoe West
Filing 2. and-selting forth d€tails ii regard
thereto. (PEC07-0002)
Applicant:Nancy Hassett. represenled by
Miramonli Archiiect PC
S.Adjoumment
HOTION: SECOIo: VOTE:
The applications and information abovt
proposals are avarlable for public inspoc
during regular ollice hours at the Towl
Vail Community Developmenl D€partml
75 South Frontage Road. The publi'
invited to att€nd lhe proiecl o.rentation t
the site visits that prec€de the put
hearing in the TJwn of Vail Commur
Dev€looment Dgoarlment. Pl€as€ (
(970) 479.2138 for additional information
Sign language interpr€tation is availa
upon request wilh 24-hour notiticati
Pl€ase call (970) 479-2356, Telephon€
the Hearing lmpaired, for inlormalion.
Community Development D€partment
Published Februarv 9.2007. in th9 \
Dait. (lt {oO)
Planner:Bill Gibson
ACTfON:Tabfed to Fabruary 26,2007
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
o.Approvd of Jrurry 22, 2007 mixrb8KrTEfl: SEOOiEVOTE:
THE VAIL DAILY 970.949.
WOLOOTT
Enioy spectacular views overloo
gorgeous Vail Valley. Quiet and s
1.19 acre lot is located uo Bellvi
from any highway noisb.
s{01t 000
,udd B$codr 971F9:IG577I .
Gateway Land and Deyelopment
www.vailpropertysearch.com
Fabulous 5l+ acles. Beeutiful hand-hewr
limber lrame house, 2 car oaraqe, post &
beam barn Vcement floor. Biinq the
horses & all your toys. Enjoy BIM
access & incrcdlble views" All theaccess & ancrcdtble vierys. Al I the
recreation you can imagine! Zoned for
caretaker house & addl outbuildinqs.
sa600,qn
Jody Lindvall, 970-390-2695
Lindvall & Lame'Real Estate Co.
wotcoTT For Rent ByOwner!
This space...
Amenitie include:
- Free color
- Lots ol room for
descriotion
+ unlimited texl and multiole
Dhotos online
- Thdusands of viewers
in print & online
- Happy sellers
- Low rent for long-term lease
Inquire Today!
845-9937
T.lntomallon Updalis